Appeal 2007-1262
Application 10/697,532
invention can use “[a]ny conventional bottom balance layer” (Specification
8, l. 7; emphasis added).
For the reasons set forth above and in the Answer, the record before
us evinces a prima facie case of obviousness for the argued claims on appeal
which has not been successfully rebutted by the Appellants. In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We hereby
sustain, therefore, the § 103 rejection of claims 1-39 as being unpatentable
over Hansson in view of Casto.
The Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejections
It is undisputed that each of Chen ‘009, Chen ‘460, and Chen ‘934
claims a thermoplastic plank comprising a core, a printed layer or design,
and a protective layer or coating, wherein an underlay layer may be located
between the print layer and core. As fully explained above and in the
Answer, the combined teachings of Hansson and Casto would have
suggested the Appellants’ claimed method for making products of the type
defined by appealed claim 1. Analogously, these prior art references would
have suggested using such a method in order to make products of the type
defined by the claims of the aforementioned Chen patents. Accordingly, it
would have been obvious for an artisan to manufacture the products claimed
in these Chen patents with the method resulting from the previously
discussed combination of Hansson and Casto, thereby resulting in the
product and method defined by the appealed claims.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013