Appeal No. 2007-0739
Application No. 11/043,655
The Examiner notes that Pitts and Porter are analogous art as both
references relate to floor mats. Id. The Examiner then concludes “[i]t would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the protective
layer and decorative material of Pitts being integral because Porter teaches
this results in a desired decorative effect which can be utilized without
departing from the spirit of the invention.” Id.
“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Only if that
burden is met, does the burden of coming forward with evidence or
argument shift to the applicant.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532,
28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). The test of
obviousness is “whether the teachings of the prior art, taken as a whole,
would have made obvious the claimed invention.” In re Gorman, 933 F.2d
982, 986, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Appellant argues that neither Pitts nor Porter describes that the
decorative material is a seal layer. As noted by the Examiner, however,
Porter teaches the upper layer of a chair mat may be colored to provide
highly decorative floor mat protectors (col. 4, ll. 9-13). In addition,
Appellant’s specification states that the seal layer and decorative material
are integral when the decorative material is a pigment present in the polymer
seal layer (¶ 0021). Thus, we conclude that it would have been well within
the skill of the ordinary artisan to arrive at a chairmat wherein the decorative
layer is integral with the seal layer given the teachings of Pitts and Porter.
The Examiner has therefore set forth a prima facie case of obviousness as to
claim 11, and the rejection is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013