Ex Parte Rogers

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 8, 2007

10394641 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 8, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
______________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
______________

Ex parte SCOTT D. ROGERS
______________

Appeal 2007-0514
Application 10/394,641
Technology Center 1700
______________

Decided: February 8, 2007
______________

Before HANLON, TORCZON and SPIEGEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.

SPIEGEL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 4 and 14. Claims 5 through 13, the only other
claims pending in the application, have been indicated to be allowable by the
Examiner.
I. INTRODUCTION
Claims 1, 2 and 14 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and
read as follows (emphasis added).
Appeal 2007-0514
Application 10/394,641
1. An interlocking mat system for temporary
support structures comprising:
a plurality of uniformly sized rigid mats;
along at least one side and one end of said
mats, the perimeter of said mats being sloped
upward from the bottom of said mats to form a
upper lip;
at least one opposite side and opposite end
of said mats is sloped downward from top of
said mats to form a lower lip;
the angle to which said mat edges are sloped
to form said lips being substantially the same thus
allowing for the overlapping of said upper and
lower lips about the edges of said mat with
respective like lower and upper lips of other like
mats when placed adjacent thereto for joining
therewith by which said overlapping mats form a
generally flat continuous top and bottom surface;
and,
said overlapping mats' lips are secured
together by an attachment means.
2. The mat system of claim 1 wherein
the attachment means is a composite
integral fit joint, a snap fit joint or an integral
design feature joint in which the joint is held
together by material interference with the
contacting surfaces of the overlapping lips.
14. An interlocking mat system for temporary
support structures comprising:
a plurality of uniformly sized rigid mats;
said mats are manufactured from one piece
molded construction;
2
Appeal 2007-0514
Application 10/394,641
a top surface plate and said top surface plate
affixed to said mats' top by attachment means; and
bottom surface plate and said bottom
surface plate affixed to said mats' bottom by
attachment means.
two adjoining edges about the perimeter of
said mats being recessed from the bottom of said
mats to form adjoining upper lips and lower risers
along one side and one end of said mats;
wherein the remaining two adjoining edges
about the perimeter of said mats being recessed
from top of said mats to form adjoining lower lips
and upper risers along the opposite side and
opposite end of said mats;
wherein the depth to which said mat edges
are recessed to form said lips about the entire
perimeter of said mats being substantially the same
such that two diagonally opposite corners of said
mat are removed in the areas where said upper lips
would otherwise intersect with said lower lips, thus
allowing for the overlapping of said upper and
lower lips about the edges of said mat with
respective lower and upper lips of other like mats
when placed adjacent thereto for joining therewith
by which said overlapping mats have a generally
flat continuous top and bottom surface;
said upper lips slope downward from edge
of said mat to lower risers and said lower lips slope
upward from edge of said mat to upper risers;
said overlapping mats' lips are secured
together by a composite integral fit joint, a snap
fit joint or an integral design feature joint in
which the joint is held together by material
interference with the contacting surfaces of the
overlapping lips to produce a flush surface
3
Appeal 2007-0514
Application 10/394,641
between the adjoining lips and providing a
generally continuous flat upper and lower mat
surface.
said upper and lower lips have openings at
spaced intervals along said lips to allow for
alignment of said openings in said overlapping
mats to receive a captive locking pin.
We make reference to the Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Brief," filed
March 20, 2006) and to the Examiner's Answer ("Answer," mailed June 6,
2006).
The Examiner relies on the following references in her rejection:
Steaux US 6,511,257 Jan. 28, 2003
(filed 31 May 2000)
Reese, Jr. US 5,667,866 Sep. 16, 1997
Appellant's application was filed on March 21, 2003 and claims
priority to provisional application 60/366,729, filed March 22, 2002. Steaux
and Reese, Jr. qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and 102(b),
respectively.
II. ISSUES
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Steaux. Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Steaux in view of Reese, Jr.
III. GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments for
claims 3 and 4, both of which depend from claim 1. Therefore, we decide
this appeal on the basis of claims 1, 2, 4 and 14. 37 CFR § 41.37(b)(viii).
IV. DISCUSSION
A. The prior art
4
Appeal 2007-0514
Application 10/394,641
Seaux describes an interlocking mat system comprising a plurality of
uniformly sized, rigid mats (col. 1, ll. 19-34; figs. 3, 4 and 10). Figures 3
and 4 show top plan and side views, respectively, of an individual mat 20
(col. 7, ll. 21-24). The mat comprises mirror-image upper 21 and lower 22
half-pieces which are mutually offset and affixed to each other, thereby
defining upper peripheral extensions 25a and 25b on two adjacent edges of
the mat and lower peripheral extensions 26a and 26b on the remaining two
adjacent edges (col. 8, ll. 16-28 and ll. 36-42; figs. 4 and 3, respectively).
The peripheral edges of the upper and lower half-pieces, 27 and 28,
respectively, are chamfered (i.e., beveled) at substantially the same angle
along the full extent of the half pieces (col. 8, ll. 28-31; fig. 4). When two
mats are placed together laterally, upper peripheral extension 25a of one mat
overlaps lower peripheral extension 26a of the other mat (col. 8, ll. 41-45).
Similarly, if the two mats are placed together longitudinally, upper
peripheral extension 25b of one mat overlaps lower peripheral extension 26b
of the other mat (col. 8, ll. 45-49). Joining a plurality of individual mats
together provides a generally continuous and smooth roadway or other
support surface (col. 10, ll. 1-5; fig. 10). According to Seaux, the
overlap/underlap relationship shared by the offset peripheral edges of
adjoining mats provides increased frictional contact between mats which
helps prevent separation of the mats (col. 10, ll. 1-10). Further according to
Seaux, in many applications, the frictional contact is enough to keep the
individual mats in contact with one another so that gaps will not develop
between the mats (col. 10, ll. 11-13). However, recessed slots may be
provided in the peripheral edges of the mats so that slots of adjoining mats
may be aligned and clamped together with pins (col. 10, ll. 13-29; fig. 10,
peg 90).
5
Appeal 2007-0514
Application 10/394,641
Reese, Jr. describes affixing top 18 and bottom 24 surface plates to a
core mat 12 to improve the load carrying properties of the mat (col. 1, ll. 6-
10; col. 3, ll. 37-38 and 43-44; fig. 1). The top plate is made to withstand
greater compressive forces, while the bottom plate provides enhanced
tensility (col. 2, ll. 1-4).
B. The anticipation rejection of claims 1-3 over Seaux
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Appellant argues that
Seaux fails to describe "overlapping sloping lips" of claim 1 (i.e., claim 1
requires "along at least one side and one end of said mats, the perimeter of
said mats being sloped upward from the bottom of said mats to form a upper
lip" and "at least one opposite side and opposite end of said mats is sloped
downward from top of said mats to form a lower lip") (Brief, p. 6, para. 2).
Appellant contends that the upper and lower peripheral extensions of Seaux
(25 and 26) are described as planar, not sloped, and that the "chamfered"
peripheral edges (27 and 28) of the upper and lower half-pieces of the mat
are not a peripheral extension or lip (Brief, p. 6, para. 2). Appellant also
maintains that Seaux does not describe the chamfered peripheral edges as
forming part of the peripheral extension (Brief, p. 7, para. 3). The Examiner,
however, contends that the claimed "sloping lips" does read on the
chamfered (sloped) peripheral extension (lip) of Seaux because Appellant
"did not claim that the upper and lower lips consist of just slopes but that the
slopes merely form upper and lower lips giving room for the extended back
part of the lip to also be considered as the upper and lower lips" (Answer, p.
7, para. 1).
6
Appeal 2007-0514
Application 10/394,641
During examination of a patent application, claims are given their
broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 320-21, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Further, while claims are read in light of the specification, specification
limitations are not read into the claims. Id. Here, Appellant has not
explained why the Examiner's interpretation of the claim term "lip" is in
error or is inconsistent with Appellant's specification. Moreover, as noted
by the Examiner, the claimed "lip" does not require any particular type of
sloping or overlapping, e.g., that there be a continuous slope from the outer
edge of the lip to where the lip meets the main body of the mat. Therefore,
Appellant's argument that Seaux fails to describe "overlapping sloping lips"
is not convincing. Furthermore, Appellant's argument that Seaux fails to
describe the chamfered peripheral edges of the upper and lower half-pieces
of the mat as part of the peripheral extension does not persuade us otherwise.
Insofar as Seaux describes the edges of the mat half-pieces as forming the
peripheral edges and the edges of the mat half-pieces as being chamfered,
Seaux describes the peripheral edges as being chamfered. Accordingly, we
affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 3 under § 102(e)
as anticipated by Seaux.
As to claim 2, Appellant argues that Seaux does not describe an
integral joint (i.e., claim 2 requires that "the attachment means is a
composite integral fit joint, a snap fit joint or an integral design feature joint
in which the joint is held together by material interference with the
contacting surfaces of the overlapping lips") (Brief, p. 8, para. 2).
According to Appellant, the claimed integral joint does not require any
separate attachment devices, e.g., stakes, pegs or other clamping means, as
described by Seaux, to keep individual mats with sloped lips from sliding
7
Appeal 2007-0514
Application 10/394,641
apart (id., p. 8, para. 3). However, the Examiner is of the opinion that the
"material interference" holding the joint together with the contacting
surfaces of the overlapping lips reads on the separate devices described by
Seaux (Answer, p. 8, para. 1). The Examiner explicitly identifies "figure 10
number 90" in Seaux as describing "an integral design feature joint, in which
the joint is held together by material interference with the contacting
surfaces of the overlapping lips" (id., p. 4, para. 1).
According to Appellant's specification (p. 10, ll. 10-16),
[t]here are many well known means to assemble
composite components such as composite integral
fit joints, snap fit joints and integral design feature
joints in which the joint is held together by
material interference with the contacting surfaces.
For example, the overlapping lips can be
interlocked [sic, via] a mortise and tenon joint.
Alternatively and additionally, the mat's
overlapping lips can be secured together by any
type of fastening device, stakes, bolts, screws,
pins, clamps, peg or external fastening means.
The Examiner's interpretation of "material interference" is
inconsistent with Appellant's specification. According to Appellant's
specification, "material interference" is not an external or separate device.
External or separate fastening devices, such as the pegs illustrated in Seaux
"figure 10 number 90," are expressly described in Appellant's specification
as alternative and addition to material interference joints. Finally, a peg is
not a joint and, therefore, the Examiner has failed to explain where Seaux
describes a mat having an integral design feature joint as claimed.
Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claim 2 under
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Seaux.
8
Appeal 2007-0514
Application 10/394,641
C. The obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 14 over Seaux in
view of Reese, Jr.

Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness not only requires some
suggestion or motivation to combine the reference teachings and a
reasonable expectation of success, but also the prior art must teach or
suggest all the claim limitations. In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20
USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991). According to the Examiner, the only
difference between the claimed invention and Seaux is that Seaux fails to
disclose a mat having top and bottom surface plates attached thereto
(Answer, p. 5, para. 3). However, claim 14, like claim 2, requires "a
composite integral fit joint, a snap fit joint or an integral design feature joint
in which the joint is held together by material interference with the
contacting surfaces of the overlapping lips." The Examiner has failed to
establish that Seaux describes a mat having an integral design feature joint
as claimed for the reasons given above explaining why Seaux does not
anticipate claim 2. The Examiner does not allege, and we do not find, where
Reese, Jr. addresses this deficiency in Seaux. Accordingly, we reverse the
decision of the Examiner to reject claim 14 as unpatentable under § 103(a)
over Seaux in view of Reese, Jr. It is not necessary to our decision to
address Appellant's argument that "the Examiner failed to address the
language of Claim 14 that the lip slopes from the riser to the mat's edge"
(Brief, p. 10, para. 3).
Claim 4 is dependent upon claim 1 are requires the mat to be
manufactured from one piece molded construction and have top and bottom
surface plates affixed thereto by attachment means. The Examiner argues
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
Appellant's invention was made to affix top and lower surface plates to the
9
Appeal 2007-0514
Application 10/394,641
mat described by Seaux in order to allow the mat to withstand greater
compressive forces (top plate) and to provide enhanced tensility (bottom
plate) as taught by Reese, Jr. (Answer, p. 6, para. 1). Appellant does not
contest the obviousness of affixing top and lower surface plates to the mat of
claim 1 in view of the disclosure of Reese, Jr. Appellant simply reiterates its
arguments regarding the asserted deficiencies of Seaux vis-à-vis claim 1.
Therefore, we reiterate our reasons as to why these arguments are
unpersuasive vis-à-vis claim 1. Accordingly, since Apellant has not
provided separate patentability arguments in regard to claim 4, we affirm the
decision of the Examiner to reject claim 4 under § 103(a) as obvious over
Seaux in view of Reese, Jr.
V. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the decision of the Examiner (a) to reject claims 1 and
3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Seaux is affirmed, (b) to reject
claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Seaux is reversed, (c) to
reject claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Seaux in view of
Reese, Jr. is affirmed and (d) to reject claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Seaux in view of Reese, Jr. is reversed.

10
Appeal 2007-0514
Application 10/394,641
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART; REVERSED-IN-PART

/Adriene Lepiane Hanlon/ )
ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON)
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
/Richard Torczon/ ) BOARD OF PATENT
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
/Carol A. Spiegel/ )
CAROL A. SPIEGEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )

11
Appeal 2007-0514
Application 10/394,641

Len R. Brignac, Esq.
King, LeBlanc, & Bland, P.L.L.C.
201 St. Charles Ave., 45th Floor
New Orleans, LA 70170

12