Appeal No. 2007-0739
Application No. 11/043,655
In order for a prior art reference to serve as an anticipatory reference;
it must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429,
1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We find that Pitts discloses every limitation of claim
1, and the rejection is affirmed.
Claim 1 is drawn to a chairmat comprising: (1) a planar substrate layer
having a first side which rests on the floor and a second side opposite from
the first side; (2) a decorative substrate layer disposed directly on the first
layer; and (3) a transparent seal layer disposed directly on the decorative
material.
We have reproduced Figure 2 of Pitts below.
Figure 2 of Pitts is a sectional view of the antistatic chairmat taught by
that reference (col. 2, ll. 19-20). Layer (16), which reads on the planar
substrate layer of claim 1, is a conductive or semiconductive base layer (col.
2, ll. 50-51). Layer (15), which reads on the decorative substrate layer
disposed directly on the first (base) layer, is an intermediate insulative layer
(col. 2, ll. 49-50), wherein the layer “advantageously consists of a decorative
printed design of nonconductive ink” or may “be an insulating sheet of
printed material” (col. 3, ll. 1-5). Layer (11), which reads on the transparent
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013