Appeal No. 2007-0739
Application No. 11/043,655
seal layer, is a transparent top layer (col. 2, ll. 47-49). Thus, Pitts teaches all
of the elements of claim 1.
Appellant argues that the decorative pattern on nonconductive inks is
provided on the undersurface of layer 11, which is opposite of the position
required by claim 1, in which the top surface of the substrate opposite the
floor is provided with the decorative material (Br. 5).
Claim 1 requires a decorative layer that is sandwiched between the
planar substrate layer and the transparent seal layer. As can be seen from
Figure 2 of Pitts, the decorative layer (15) is sandwiched between the base
layer (16) and the upper transparent layer (11). It is a matter of semantics
only to argue that layer (15) is provided on the undersurface of (11) rather
than the top of the base layer (16), as the position of the decorative layer
(15) is the same—sandwiched between base layer (16) and the upper
transparent layer (11). Thus, as Pitts teaches a chairmat that has all of the
limitations required by the chairmat of claim 1, the rejection is affirmed.
Claims 11, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Pitts and Porter. As Appellant does not argue the claims
separately (Br. 7), we focus our analysis on claim 11.
Claim 11 is drawn to the chairmat of claim 1, “wherein the seal layer
and the decorative material are integral.”
Pitts is relied upon as above (Answer 6). According to the Examiner,
“Pitts does not disclose the seal layer and decorative material being
integral.” Id. Porter is relied upon for teaching a floor mat having
protective colored upper coatings. Id.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013