Appeal 2007-4310
Application 10/950,830
providing a desired texture on a top surface of the scrim." (Answer at 4,
citing Mangum at 4:20–30.)
21. The Examiner finds that the bottom surface would define a skid-
resistant surface "because the texture is provided on its top surface."
(Answer at 4.)
22. The Examiner also finds that the incomplete coating of the top surface
"further implies a portion of the scrim fibers being uncovered by the coating
for imparting a textured or hairy surface." (Answer at 4.)
Price's Arguments
23. Price has not challenged the prior art status of any of the references
applied by the Examiner.
24. Moreover, Price has not offered separate substantive arguments for
the patentability of dependent claims other than claims 11 and 12, which
depend from claim 1, and which are rejected solely over Mangum.
25. Substantively, regarding claims 1–15, Price argues first that the
references do not disclose or suggest a shelf liner having open pores
extending from one major surface to the other major surface. (Br. at 12.)
26. In particular, according to Price, the Examiner relies on an improper
combination of two different embodiments of Mangum, namely, the
description of the coated second scrim having apertures, and the teaching
that multi-scrim no-slip pads can be made from multiple layers of the same
scrim type. (Br. part VII.A.1, at 12–13.)
27. Moreover, Price argues that the combination of two of the second
scrims taught by Mangum would not result in a liner having a skid resistant
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013