Appeal 2007-1124
Application 10/349,639
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. Has the Examiner shown that Smith, either expressly or
inherently, discloses the feature of mechanically embossed
texture on the tile edges?”
Appellant argues that Smith cannot anticipate the claims because Smith
fails to disclose a mechanically embossed texture on the tile edges. Br. 8.
Although the Examiner correctly notes that Smith teaches the step of
embossing vinyl tiles to form a decorative layer (Answer 6), it is clear from
Smith’s disclosure that the tile edges are beveled after the embossing step.
The beveling step provides smooth edges. (FF 4). Accordingly, we are in
agreement with Appellant that Smith fails to disclose, either expressly or
inherently, a mechanically embossed texture on the tile edges.
The rejection of claims 34 and 36-38 under 35 U.S.C § 102(b) as
anticipated by Smith is reversed. Because the rejection of claim 35 under
35 U.S.C § 103(a) is similarly based on the Examiner’s finding that Smith
discloses a tile having mechanically embossed edges, we also reverse the
rejection of claim 35 as unpatentable over Smith.
II. Has the Examiner shown that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide
the feature of mechanically embossed texture the edges of tile based
on the combined teachings of Smith and Ehrhart?”
The Examiner found that Smith discloses the invention as claimed in
claim 24 with the exception of one half of the even number of edges being
routed and each of the routed edges being adjacent to one another. Answer
5. The Examiner relies on Ehrhart for a disclosure of tiles having routed
edges. Answer 5. The Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013