Appeal 2007-0514
Application 10/394,641
mat described by Seaux in order to allow the mat to withstand greater
compressive forces (top plate) and to provide enhanced tensility (bottom
plate) as taught by Reese, Jr. (Answer, p. 6, para. 1). Appellant does not
contest the obviousness of affixing top and lower surface plates to the mat of
claim 1 in view of the disclosure of Reese, Jr. Appellant simply reiterates its
arguments regarding the asserted deficiencies of Seaux vis-à-vis claim 1.
Therefore, we reiterate our reasons as to why these arguments are
unpersuasive vis-à-vis claim 1. Accordingly, since Apellant has not
provided separate patentability arguments in regard to claim 4, we affirm the
decision of the Examiner to reject claim 4 under § 103(a) as obvious over
Seaux in view of Reese, Jr.
V. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the decision of the Examiner (a) to reject claims 1 and
3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Seaux is affirmed, (b) to reject
claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Seaux is reversed, (c) to
reject claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Seaux in view of
Reese, Jr. is affirmed and (d) to reject claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Seaux in view of Reese, Jr. is reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013