Ex Parte Qiong

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

13479819 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/479,819 05/24/2012 SunQIONG
20427 7590 09/21/2016
RODMAN RODMAN
10 STEW ART PLACE
SUITE2CE
WHITE PLAINS, NY 10603
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
RR-766 5906
EXAMINER
MICHENER, JOSHUA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3635
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
rodrod@rodman-rodman.com
charles@rodman-rodman.com
phil@rodman-rodman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUN QIONG
Appeal2014-009732
Application 13/479,819
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, KEN B. BARRETT, and JAMES P. CALVE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1-5 and 7-23. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-009732
Application 13/479,819
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A floor member for installation on a floor base
without bonding or adhering the floor member to the floor base,
the floor member comprising,
a) a flexible floor member unit having a multi-
sided polygonal periphery and peripheral edges, a top surface
for walking upon and a bottom surface for placement cm a floor
base,
b) said floor member unit having a flexible main
substrate layer with upper and lower surfaces,
c) a flexible plastic wear layer laminated to the
upper surface of said main substrate layer, and
d) a bottom portion of hot-melt adhesive material
provided below the lower surface of the main substrate layer,
said bottom portion having an exposed bottom surface of the
hot-melt adhesive material that is the bottom surface of the
floor member unit that is placed on a floor base, the exposed
bottom surface of the hot-melt adhesive material being non-
adhesive, and non-tacky at normal room temperatures to
provide said floor member with a slide resistant bottom surface
that minimizes inadvertent movement of the floating floor
member in a floating floor installation.
REJECTIONS 1
Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Windmoller (US 2011/0296780 Al, pub. Dec. 8, 2011)
and Pigott (US 2003/0041956 Al, pub. Mar. 6, 2003).
Claims 11-15 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Windmoller, Pigott, and Shigetaka (JP9- l 3 l 8 l 9 A, pub.
May 20, 1997).
1 The Examiner's finding that "normal room temperatures" in claims 1 and
16 is indefinite (Ans. 8) was not raised as a rejection in the Final Action that
was appealed or the Answer, and thus is not before us for review.
2
Appeal2014-009732
Application 13/479,819
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 16--18 as unpatentable over Windmoller and Pigott
The Examiner found that Windmoller teaches a floor member and the
method recited in independent claims 1 and 16, respectively, with bottom
layer 60 of PVC material but not a bottom portion of hot melt adhesive.
Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner found that Pigott teaches a PVC pallet with a
hot melt coating added to it, and the coating is non-adhesive and non-tacky
at room temperature to prevent slippage of items on the pallet. Id. at 3.
The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to modify
the bottom surface of Windmoller's flooring to include the hot-melt bottom
layering of Pigott to offer better resistance to floor panel slippage. Id. The
Examiner found that Windmoller teaches flooring with a PVC bottom layer,
which is a material that slides and slips due to its smooth texture, and Pigott
teaches a load-bearing PVC material with a non-adhesive, hot-melt material
added to reduce slippage. Ans. 6-7. The Examiner reasoned that a skilled
artisan would have been motivated to place such as anti-skid material on the
bottom surface of Windmoller' s flooring for safety reasons and to prevent
slippage as taught by Pigott and because it is well-known in the art to place
anti-skid material on the bottom surfaces of items for safety reasons. Id.
Appellant argues that there is no motivation to modify Windmoller's
floor members to include an anti-friction coating of Pigott because the floor
panels can be assembled as a floating floor without adhesive or bonding to
secure the floor members to the floor base. Appeal Br. 8-9. Appellant also
argues that Pigott applies a coating to a bottom surface of a pallet to increase
friction with the floor and there is no recognized problem in the art relating
to floating floors including such coatings on their bottom surfaces. Id. at 9.
3
Appeal2014-009732
Application 13/479,819
The Examiner's reason for including a hot-melt layer of Pigott on the
bottom surface of the flooring of Windmoller is not supported by rational
underpinning. As Appellant points out, Windmoller' s floor is designed to be
laid "so as to float" so that any shrinkage that occurs can be compensated for
by the floating arrangement. Windmoller ,-r 20; Appeal Br. 8. Thus, it is not
clear why a skilled artisan would been motivated to add an anti-skid material
to bottom surface 60 of Windmoller' s floating flooring. Pigott teaches that
an anti-skid material on the bottom surface 21 of pallet 10 reduces slippage
between a pallet and floor (Pigott i-fi-1 14, 27), whereas Windmoller teaches
that a floating/moving floor is beneficial and desirable (Windmoller ,-r 20).
Even if anti-skid surfaces are well-known in the art as a safety feature,
the Examiner has not explained why an anti-skid feature would have been
added to a bottom surface of Windmoller's floating flooring. Appeal Br. 12;
Reply Br. 2--4. The Examiner does not explain adequately how such coating
enhances safety. Nor has the Examiner explained how Pigott's teaching to
add small segments 31, 32, 33 of anti-skid material to small portions of the
bottom surface 21 of pallet 10 (Pigott i-f 27, Fig. 2) renders obvious the floor
member having "an exposed bottom surface of the hot-melt adhesive
material that is the bottom surface of the floor member unit," as recited in
claims 1 and 16.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-10, and 16-18
Claims 11-15 and 19-23 as unpatentable over Windmoller, Pigott, and
Shigetaka
The Examiner relied on Shigetaka to teach the features of dependent
claims 11-15 and 19-23, and not to remedy any deficiencies of Windmoller
or Pigott discussed above. Final Act. 5---6; see Appeal Br. 14. Thus, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 11-15 and 19-23.
4
Appeal2014-009732
Application 13/479,819
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1-5 and 7-23.
REVERSED
5