Appeal No. 2007-0739
Application No. 11/043,655
decorative material), it meets all of the limitations of claim 1, and the
rejection is affirmed. Note that the use of the transition language
“comprising” in claim 1 does not exclude additional layers on top of the seal
layer.
Appellant argues that the substrate of Sawka is not planar, pointing to
Figure 1 (Br. 6). As can be seen from Figure 1, however, layer (24), which
reads on the base layer, is planar.
Appellant argues further that Sawka is drawn to a multilayer film and
not a chairmat. As noted above, however, Sawka teaches that the multilayer
film has both indoor and outdoor uses, and specifically teaches a floormat.
A floormat meets all of the limitations and capabilities of a chairmat, and
thus Sawka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Claims 4 and 12-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Sawka.
Sawka is relied upon as above (Answer 5). The Examiner notes that
Sawka does not explicitly disclose a border, but notes that Sawka discloses
that the decorative layer may be discontinuous, thus providing an almost
limitless variety of aesthetically pleasing decorative effects, such as a
border. Id.
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obviousness, and the rejection is affirmed.
As to claims 12-16, Appellant does not argue the applicability of the
rejection to claims 13-16. As to claim 12, Appellant states that claim 12 is
patentable for the same reasons as is claim 1 (Br. 6-7). Therefore, we affirm
the rejection as to claims 12-16 for the reasons set forth above as to claim 1.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013