Ex Parte Wright

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 4, 2014

11564771 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JEFFERY J. WRIGHT
____________

Appeal 2012-011260
Application 11/564,771
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, PETER F. KRATZ, and
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellant appeals from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 9, 11-20, 31, 33-42, 53, and 54
as unpatentable over Brumbelow et al. (US 2002/0134486 A1, published
Appeal 2012-011260
Application 11/564,771

2
Sept. 26, 2002) and of claims 10 and 32 to as unpatentable over Brumbelow
in view of Higgins (US 5,540,968, issued Jul. 30, 1996). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

We AFFIRM.

Appellant claims a carpet or carpet tile comprising a substantially
uncrosslinked foam cushion backing (independent claims 9 and 31).

A copy of representative claim 9, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
9. A carpet or carpet tile comprising a precoated greige good having a
face side and a back side, wherein the precoated greige good has a
substantially uncrosslinked foam cushion backing having a thickness of
greater than 0.075 inches affixed to the back side thereof with an adhesive
material,
wherein the foam cushion backing comprises a foamable polymer
composition comprising one or more of a homogenously branched ethylene
polymer (HBEP) or a substantially linear ethylene polymer (SLEP), and
wherein the foam cushion backing is prepared from the foamable polymer
composition.

The sole argued issue in this appeal is whether the Examiner has
provided this record with an adequate basis in fact and technical reasoning to
support the finding that Brumbelow's backing inherently is substantially
uncrosslinked as required by the independent claims (see Br. 4-5).

Appeal 2012-011260
Application 11/564,771

3
We determine that the record supports this finding for the reasons well
stated by the Examiner in the Final Office Action mailed 2 March 2011 and
in the Answer mailed 2 May 2012 (see, e.g., Ans. 6-7, 9-11).

We sustain, therefore, the above § 103 rejections advanced in this
appeal.

The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc