Ex Parte Garcia

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 3, 2013

12007582 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 3, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte EUGENIO CRUZ GARCIA
____________

Appeal 2011-000614
Application 12/007,582
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, NEIL T. POWELL, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-14. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2011-000614
Application 12/007,582

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 6, and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A laminate flooring system, comprising:
at least two unitary laminate flooring planks, each of said
laminate flooring planks divided into at least two adjacent
square tiles, said flooring planks having a rectangular shape
having a width corresponding to a short side and a length
corresponding to a long side, and each of said square tiles
having four sides and each of said sides having a length equal
to the width of the respective flooring plank;
a boundary bevel disposed between adjacent tiles of each
of the flooring planks, wherein the boundary bevel is
embossed-in-registration on the surface of the respective
flooring plank; and
an edge bevel extending along each edge of the tiles that
falls on an edge of the respective flooring plank,
wherein said two flooring planks are placed adjacent one
another so that edge bevels of the respective flooring planks are
also adjacent; and
wherein the combined width of the adjacent edge bevels
equals the width of the boundary bevel so that the edges
between flooring planks is indistinguishable from the boundary
bevel between adjacent tiles of the respective flooring plank.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5-9, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), Slocum
(US 5,182,891; iss. Feb. 2, 1993), and Yau (US 2008/0184647 A1; pub.
Aug. 7, 2008).
Claims 2-4 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over AAPA, Slocum, Yau, and Ormiston (US 5,755,068; iss.
May 26, 1998).

Appeal 2011-000614
Application 12/007,582

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 5-9, 13, and 14 unpatentable over AAPA, Slocum, and Yau
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner found that the Applicant’s Admitted
Prior Art (AAPA) discloses all critical geometric elements of the laminate
tile design, including widths and lengths of interior and exterior tile pieces,
but does not disclose planks consisting of more than one adjacent tile and
micro-beveling around the tiles/planks of less than 1 mm. Ans. 3, 6-7. The
Examiner found that Slocum discloses rectangular planks with two or more
tiles within and determined that it would have been obvious to modify the
tile system of the AAPA by engraving multiple tiles in one plank for ease of
installation and to use less material as planks account for more tiles. Ans. 4.
Regarding the limitation of a boundary bevel disposed between adjacent tiles
of flooring planks and the combined widths of the edge bevels equaling the
width of the boundary bevel, the Examiner found that the combination of
references teaches a final product that would comprise a floor system where
each tile has a uniform bevel and the references, in combination, teach floor
planks which are then beveled to make each tile seem beveled individually,
which is considered obvious and apparent. Ans. 7. The Examiner relied on
Yau to disclose micro-beveling of less than 1 mm in width, as recited in
claims 5, 8, and 9. Ans. 4.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not established that
the AAPA discloses boundary and edge bevels “wherein the combined width
of the adjacent edge bevels equals the width of the boundary bevel so that
the edges between flooring planks is indistinguishable from the boundary
bevel between adjacent tiles of the respective flooring plank” and Slocum
and Yau do not remedy these deficiencies. App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 5.
Appeal 2011-000614
Application 12/007,582

4
Appellant discloses that laminate flooring planks of the AAPA are the size
of a single tile that includes wooden strips that may be bounded solely by
dark lines in a pattern or by bevels, but bevels within the plank and around
the wooden strips are not the same size as bevels around the edge of the
plank. Spec. 3, para. [0005]; fig. 1. The Examiner did not rely on Slocum to
disclose edge or boundary bevel widths. Therefore, the Examiner’s finding
that the combination of references teaches a final product where each tile has
a uniform bevel is not supported by a preponderance of evidence where the
Appellant discloses that bevels around the edges of the AAPA plank tend to
be much wider than bevels in the interior of the plank. Spec. 3, para. [0005].
This disclosure does not establish that each tile has a “uniform bevel” or a
bevel of the same width on all four sides or that combining two or more of
the AAPA tiles would result in a plank with the claimed edge and boundary
bevel widths. Nor does this disclosure support the Examiner’s finding that
combining two or more AAPA tiles according to the teachings of Slocum
results in a plank “wherein the combined width of the adjacent edge bevels
equals the width of the boundary bevel” because Slocum is not relied upon
to disclose any bevel widths. If anything, the AAPA tends to indicate that
the interior boundary bevels between tiles of a plank would be narrower than
edge bevels. The Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious
to bevel each plank so that each tile seems beveled individually does not
provide an adequate basis or otherwise explain why a skilled artisan would
make the edge bevels of the same width on individual tiles or on planks that
comprise two or more tiles so that the combined widths of the edge bevels
equals the width of the boundary bevel where the AAPA and Slocum do not
provide such teachings. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 5.
Appeal 2011-000614
Application 12/007,582

5
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Appellant argues that none of the cited
references teach or suggest “the width of the edge bevel is approximately
equal to half the width of the boundary bevel.” App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 6-7.
We agree for the reasons discussed supra for claim 1. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 6-9, 13, and 14.
Claims 2-4 and 10-12 unpatentable over AAPA, Slocum, Yau, and Ormiston
Appellant argues that claims 2-4 and 10-12 depend from claims 1 and
6, respectively, and therefore also are allowable for at least the same reasons
as independent claims 1 and 6. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 7-8. We agree. The
Examiner’s reliance on Ormiston to disclose features of claims 2-4 and 10-
12 does not remedy the deficiencies of the AAPA, Slocum, and Yau as to
claims 1 and 6. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-4 and 10-12.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-14.

REVERSED

hh