Ex Parte Grafenauer

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 29, 2012

11533634 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte THOMAS GRAFENAUER
________________

Appeal 2010-001906
Application 11/533,634
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, GAY ANN SPAHN and
CHARLES N. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
The Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s 2
final decision rejecting claims 1-24. The Examiner rejects: 3
claims 15-20 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second 4
paragraph, as being indefinite; 5

1 The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Flooring
Technologies LTD.
Appeal No. 2010-001906
Application No. 11/533,634

2
claims 1-3, 6, 7, 12, 15 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 1
as being unpatentable over Grafenauer (DE 101 62 275 C1, 2
publ. Feb. 20, 2003)2 and Glowa (US 5,791,113, issued Aug. 3
11, 1998); 4
claims 4, 13, 16 and 17 under § 103(a) as being 5
unpatentable over Grafenauer, Glowa and Foy (US 6,286,841 6
B1, issued Sep. 11, 2001); 7
claim 5 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over 8
Grafenauer, Glowa and Pervan (US 2003/0233809 A1, publ. 9
Dec. 25, 2003); 10
claims 8-11, 14 and 21-23 under § 103(a) as being 11
unpatentable over Grafenauer, Glowa and Andrzejewski (US 12
4,107,898, issued Aug. 22, 1978); and 13
claims 18-20 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over 14
Grafenauer, Glowa, Foy and Andrzejewski. 15
Oral argument was heard February 14, 2012. We have jurisdiction under 35 16
U.S.C. § 6(b). 17
We AFFIRM. 18
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal: 19
1. A connecting element for connecting 20
flooring panels with a core of wooden material, 21
comprising a tongue on one side edge and a groove 22
on an opposite side edge, wherein the tongue 23
corresponds to a groove of a panel and the groove 24
on the opposite side edge corresponds to a tongue 25
of the panel, and 26

2 All reference to “Grafenauer” in this opinion will be to the official
translation prepared by FLS, Inc. in or about June 2009, which is of record
in the file of the underlying application.
Appeal No. 2010-001906
Application No. 11/533,634

3
two lips lying opposite one another 1
embodied on a top side projecting beyond 2
the one side edge and the opposite side edge, 3
wherein the two lips are configured to 4
provide a sole sealing mechanism. 5
(Reformatted for emphasis.) 6
7
ISSUES 8
Only issues and findings of fact contested by the Appellant will be 9
addressed. See Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075-76 (BPAI 2010). 10
The Appellant argues the rejection of claims 15-20 and 23 under the 11
second paragraph of § 112 as a group. (See App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 4-5). 12
Independent claims 15 and 23 are representative. A first issue raised in this 13
appeal is: 14
First, are claims 15-20 and 23 indefinite due to the 15
recitation of “lips configured to . . . overlap a butt joint between 16
panels of the at least one flooring panel and the connecting 17
element?” (See App. Br. 5-7; Ans. 3; Reply Br. 4-5). 18
The Appellant groups claims 1, 6, 7 and 12 for purposes of the 19
rejection under § 103(a). (See App. Br. 7-18). Claim 1 is representative of 20
this group. Although claim 5 is argued under a separate subheading, the 21
Appellant argues its patentability solely based on the dependence of claim 5 22
on claim 1. 23
The Appellant separately argues the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3 24
and 24 under § 103(a) under subheadings separate from the rejection of 25
claim 1. (See App. Br. 18-21). Nevertheless, the argument with which the 26
Appellant contests the rejections of claims 3 and 24 are sufficiently similar 27
to the argument with which the Appellant contests the rejection of claim 15 28
Appeal No. 2010-001906
Application No. 11/533,634

4
that our resolution of the issues raised concerning claim 15 is dispositive as 1
to the issues raised concerning claims 3 and 24. 2
Second, third and fourth issues raised in this appeal are: 3
Second, does Grafenauer or Glowa describe a connecting 4
element including “two lips lying opposite one another 5
embodied on a top side projecting beyond the one side edge and 6
the opposite side edge, wherein the two lips are configured to 7
provide a sole sealing mechanism” as recited in claim 1 or a 8
connecting element having “lips configured to be a sole sealing 9
mechanism and to bear on a top side of the at least one flooring 10
panel and overlap a butt joint between panels of the at least one 11
flooring panel and the connecting element” as recited in claim 12
15? 13
Third, do the evidence and technical reasoning 14
underlying the rejection of claims 1 and 15 adequately support 15
the conclusion that such connecting elements would have been 16
obvious? (See App. Br. 7-18; Reply Br. 5-9). 17
Fourth, do the evidence and technical reasoning 18
underlying the rejection of claim 2 adequately support the 19
conclusion that it would have been obvious to modify 20
Grafenauer’s connecting element to include resiliently elastic 21
lips? (App. Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 8-9). 22
The Appellant argues claims 4, 13, 16 and 17 as a group. (App. Br. 23
22-23). In addition, the Appellant argues the rejections of claims 8-11, 14 24
and 21-23 separately from the rejection of claim 1. Although the rejections 25
of claims 21 and 23 are argued under separate subheadings from the 26
Appeal No. 2010-001906
Application No. 11/533,634

5
remainder, the arguments addressing each of these claims is similar. (See 1
App. Br. 24-32). Therefore, our resolution of the issues raised concerning 2
claim 21 is dispositive as to the issues raised concerning claims 8-11, 14 and 3
21-23. 4
Fifth and sixth issues raised in this appeal are: 5
Fifth, is Foy or Andrzejewski non-analogous art? (App. 6
Br. 22 and 25; Reply Br. 10-11).3 7
Sixth, do the evidence and technical reasoning underlying 8
the rejection of claim 21 adequately support the conclusion that 9
a connecting element including a clamp that increases a spring 10
force of the groove of the connecting element would have been 11
obvious? (App. Br. 24-32). 12
13
FINDINGS OF FACT 14
The record supports the following findings of fact (“FF”) by a 15
preponderance of the evidence. 16
17
Grafenauer 18
1. The Appellant appears to be the named inventor of Grafenauer. 19

3 During the hearing of this appeal on February 14, 2010, Counsel for
the Appellant argued that Glowa is non-analogous art. In addition, counsel
argued that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had reason to
further modify the connecting element 7 of Grafenauer to add sealing sides
with flocking on the underside of the sealing sides in accordance with the
teachings of Glowa and Foy because Foy teaches a seal with flocking on its
upper side. These arguments do not appear to have been made in the
Appellant’s briefs. Therefore, the arguments are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.47(e)(1).
Appeal No. 2010-001906
Application No. 11/533,634

6
2. After describing drawbacks of prior art flooring systems, 1
Grafenauer states that: 2
Proceeding from this problem formulation a 3
means for connection of generic floor panels will 4
be devised which ensures simple connection of 5
panels with which if necessary a visible joint can 6
be produced and which ensures a tight connection 7
on the top of the joined panels in order to avoid 8
penetration of moisture into the core. 9
(Grafenauer, para. 0006). This passage implies that one problem with which 10
the Appellant has been involved is that of providing a tight connection on 11
the top of the joined panels in order to avoid penetration of moisture into the 12
core. 13
3. Grafenauer describes a connecting element 7 which is made 14
strip-shaped and has a tongue 3a and a groove 4a on its side edges Ia, IIa. 15
(Grafenauer, para. 0020). Figures 1-3 of Grafenauer depict the upper 16
portions of the sides edges Ia, IIa of the connecting element 7 abutting the 17
upper portions of the side of two adjoining flooring panels 1, 2 when 18
installed. 19
20
Glowa 21
4. Figures 2-4 of Glowa depict a connecting member 54 including 22
a head portion 86 with non-parallel extending sealing surfaces 89, 90. 23
(Glowa, col. 2, ll. 18-22 and 53-58). Glowa teaches that “sealing side 89 is 24
shaped to conform with a side of the first structural member forming the 25
joint, and sealing side 90 is shaped to conform with a side of the second 26
structural member.” (Glowa, col. 2, ll. 59-62 and fig, 2). 27
Appeal No. 2010-001906
Application No. 11/533,634

7
5. Nevertheless, Glowa teaches that the angle between the sealing 1
sides might be varied to seal joints between structural members having 2
surfaces extending other than in perpendicular directions. 3
For example, the two sides forming the joint may 4
be coplanar in which case after joining they 5
become [a] continuous surface. In this case, the 6
angle between the two sealing sides of the head 7
portion would be 180 degrees, and preferably 8
slightly more than 180 degrees so that the sealing 9
sides are biased against the sides forming the joint. 10
(Glowa, col. 4, ll. 56-62; see also id., col. 6, l. 66 – col. 7, l. 2 (claim 20)). 11
This description would have been understandable to an ordinary layman, not 12
to mention one of ordinary skill in the art. 13
14
Foy 15
6. Foy describes a resilient seal having a sealing surface urged into 16
contact with a planar surface of a structural element, namely, a window 17
panel 14 of an automobile 16. Foy teaches providing a contacting layer 50 18
of flocking for contact with the window panel 14. (See Foy, col. 1, ll. 46-49; 19
col 4, ll. 38-41; col. 6, ll. 12-16; and fig. 3). 20
21
Andrzejewski 22
7. Andrzejewski describes channel-shaped strips for gripping and 23
covering edge flanges surrounding an opening of a vehicle. (Andrzejewski, 24
col. 1, ll. 6-9). 25
8. Andrzejewski’s channel-shaped strip consists of a metal core 8 26
covered with a plastic or rubber material 10. (Andrzejewski, col. 2, ll. 5-9). 27
The metal core 8 is integral with the channel-shaped strip in the sense that 28
Appeal No. 2010-001906
Application No. 11/533,634

8
the metal core 8 is embedded in the strip. (See Andrzejewski, fig. 2). As 1
depicted in Figure 2, the metal core 8 has a curved cross-section essentially 2
corresponding to a circumferential contour of the channel. 3
9. The strip includes a gripping rib 12 which extends along one 4
inside wall of the channel. The gripping rib is formed over a metal 5
reinforcement 29. The strip also includes smaller gripping ribs or serrations 6
14 along an opposite inside wall of the channel. The gripping rib 12 and the 7
serrations 14 grip and seal against a flange when the channel-shaped strip is 8
placed over the flange. (Andrzejewski, col. 2, ll. 9-18 and 58-62). 9
10
ANALYSIS 11
First Issue 12
The Examiner concludes that claims 15-20 and 23 are indefinite due 13
to the recitation of “lips configured to . . . overlap a butt joint between panels 14
of the at least one flooring panel and the connecting element” in independent 15
claims 15 and 23. The language of a claim satisfies the second paragraph of 16
§ 112 only if “one skilled in the art would understand the bounds of the 17
claim when read in light of the specification.” Exxon Research & Eng’g Co. 18
v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001). A claim is indefinite 19
if the language of the claim is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation. 20
Id. Alternatively, a claim under examination susceptible of more than one 21
reasonable interpretation may be indefinite if the scope of the claim differs 22
significantly depending on which of the reasonable interpretations one 23
adopts. Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211-12 (BPAI 2008). 24
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “at least one panel” 25
is that the term is sufficiently broad to encompass a single panel. On the 26
Appeal No. 2010-001906
Application No. 11/533,634

9
other hand, the recitation of “panels of the at least one flooring panel and the 1
connecting element” implies that the at least one flooring element must 2
include a plurality of panels. The use of two different terms to identify the 3
“at least one panel” and the “connecting element” implies that the 4
connecting element is not a panel. See CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich 5
Fiedler GmbH, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000)(“In the absence of any 6
evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of these different 7
terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”) 8
Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 15-20 and 9
23 is indefinite. Depending on which interpretation of the term “at least one 10
flooring panel” one adopts, claims 15 and 23 may be sufficiently broad to 11
encompass systems having only a single floor panel or may be limited to 12
systems each having a plurality of panels. The disclosure of paragraph 13
[0016] and Figure 1 of the Specification, cited by the Appellant at page 6 of 14
the Appeal Brief, does not resolve this ambiguity. We sustain the rejection 15
of claims 15-20 and 23 under § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. 16
17
Second Issue 18
The Appellant contends that neither Grafenauer nor Glowa describes a 19
connecting element including “two lips lying opposite one another embodied 20
on a top side projecting beyond the one side edge and the opposite side 21
edge” as recited in claim 1. (See App. Br. 7). The Examiner correctly finds 22
that “Grafenauer discloses a connecting element (7), which is capable of 23
connecting flooring panels with a core of wooden material.” (Ans. 4; see 24
25
Appeal No. 2010-001906
Application No. 11/533,634

10
also FF 3).4 The Appellant concedes that Glowa also describes a 1
connecting element. (App. Br. 8 and 13). 2
Figures 2-4 of Glowa depict a connecting member 54 including a head 3
portion 86 with non-parallel extending sealing surfaces 89, 90. Glowa 4
teaches that the sealing surfaces 89, 90 are shaped to conform to 5
perpendicularly extending surfaces of a door jamb 50 and a brick mould 52 6
on either side of the joint. (FF 4). Nevertheless, Glowa also teaches joining 7
two structures with coplanar surfaces by means of a connecting member 8
having sealing sides extending opposite one another at an angle of 9
approximately 180°. (FF 5). In the Examiner’s words, Glowa teaches that 10
the lips 89, 90 “may form a coplanar joint where the sealing sides would be 11
180 degrees (col. 4, lines 52-65).” (Ans. 19). 12
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious: 13
to modify the connecting element of Grafenauer to 14
include two lips lying opposite one another 15
embodied on a top side projecting beyond opposite 16
side edges as taught by Glowa et al. in order to seal 17
the joints between the connecting element and 18
adjoining panels. 19
(Ans. 5). The problem of penetration of moisture through a joint into the 20
core of a flooring panel was known in the art. (See FF 2). The Examiner 21
correctly finds from the teachings of Glowa that sealing the joint was a 22
known solution to such a problem. The Examiner correctly concludes that 23

4 Since Grafenauer describes a plurality of flooring elements 1, 2
adjoining the connecting element 7 (FF 3), it is unnecessary to speculate as
to the scope of the term “at least one flooring panel” as used in claim 15 in
order to address whether claim 15 is patentable over the combined teachings
of Grafenauer and Glowa. Therefore, we may address the patentability of
claim 15 notwithstanding the rejection of claim 15 under the second
paragraph of § 112.
Appeal No. 2010-001906
Application No. 11/533,634

11
one of ordinary skill in the art familiar with the teachings of Grafenauer and 1
Glowa would have had reason to modify Grafenauer’s connecting element 7 2
in view of the teachings of Glowa to provide seals to address the moisture 3
penetration problem. 4
The Appellant contends that Glowa teaches away from the subject 5
matter of claims 1 and 15. More specifically, the Appellant looks to the 6
particular connecting element 54 depicted in Figures 2-4 of Glowa. The 7
Appellant argues that, with this configuration, 8
the sealing member would potentially interfere 9
with the connecting element connecting adjacent 10
panels, as it would extend into the joint of the 11
connecting element and the panel. Also, and even 12
more importantly, the sealing member would 13
extend upwards past the floor surface, making the 14
sealing member a tripping hazard. This would be 15
dangerous and, as such, one of skill would never 16
contemplate using such a sealing member 17
configuration for a flooring member. 18
(App. Br. 9-10; see also id. 15). 19
The Appellant’s argument does not persuade us of error in the 20
Examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejection. That reasoning does not 21
include substituting a connecting element identical to the particular 22
connecting element 54 depicted in Figures 2-4 of Glowa for the connecting 23
element 7 of Grafenauer. (See Ans. 5). 24
To the extent that Glowa might be deemed not to have provided an 25
express description of a connecting element having “two lips lying opposite 26
one another embodied on a top side projecting beyond the one side edge and 27
the opposite side edge, wherein the two lips are configured to provide a sole 28
sealing mechanism” as recited in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art 29
Appeal No. 2010-001906
Application No. 11/533,634

12
would have had reason to modify Grafenauer’s connecting element 7 to 1
include the feature. This is true even if other features of Glowa’s connecting 2
element 54, such as the walls 74, 76 might have been capable of making 3
some inherent contribution to the sealing of a joint in which the connecting 4
element was inserted. The Appellant does not suggest that one of ordinary 5
skill in the art might have deemed the results of the modification 6
unpredictable or that the modification would have been beyond the level of 7
ordinary skill. We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 6, 7 and 12 under 8
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grafenauer and Glowa. 9
The Appellant does not present any argument suggesting that claim 5 10
might be patentable over Grafenauer, Glowa and Pervan if claim 1 is not 11
patentable over Grafenauer and Glowa. (See App. Br. 23). We sustain the 12
rejection of claim 5 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grafenauer, 13
Glowa and Pervan. 14
15
Third Issue 16
Claim 15 recites a system including a connecting element having “in 17
an area of the side edges, lips configured to be a sole sealing mechanism and 18
to bear on a top side of the at least one flooring panel and overlap a butt joint 19
between panels of the at least one flooring panel and the connecting 20
element.” (See App. Br. 13). Similarly, claim 3 recites a connecting 21
element according to claim 1 “wherein in a connection of two panels the lips 22
are structured and arranged to bear on a top side of the panels in a sealing 23
manner.” Glowa teaches sealing a joint between two structural members 24
having coplanar sides using a connecting element in which the angle 25
between the two sealing sides of the head portion would be 180°. Glowa 26
Appeal No. 2010-001906
Application No. 11/533,634

13
teaches that, after joining, the coplanar sides of the structural members form 1
a continuous surface. (FF 5). Translating these teachings to the connecting 2
element 7 of Grafenauer, the teachings would have provided one of ordinary 3
skill in the art reason to position the sealing sides at the top of the connecting 4
element in order to overlap the top surfaces of the adjacent flooring panels to 5
form a continuous surface across the joint. We sustain the rejection of 6
claims 3, 15 and 24 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grafenauer 7
and Glowa. 8
9
Fourth Issue 10
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites that the lips are elastically 11
resilient. The Examiner correctly finds that Glowa describes the lips as 12
biased against the sides of the joint. (Ans. 6; see also FF 5). Although the 13
Appellant contends that the head portion 86 is not inherently elastic (see 14
App. Br. 9), one of ordinary skill in the art confronted with the teachings of 15
Glowa would have had reason to modify Grafenauer’s connecting element 7 16
using sealing sides formed from elastically resilient material extending 17
opposite one another at an angle of approximately 180° in order to provide a 18
biasing force between the seal and the top surface of an adjacent flooring 19
panel. We sustain the rejection of claim 2 under § 103(a) as being 20
unpatentable over Grafenauer and Glowa. 21
22
Fifth Issue 23
The Appellant contends that Foy and Andrzejewski are non-analogous 24
art. (See App. Br. 22 and 25). The established precedent of our reviewing 25
Court sets up a two-fold test for determining whether art is analogous: “(1) 26
Appeal No. 2010-001906
Application No. 11/533,634

14
whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem 1
addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s 2
endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular 3
problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 4
1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 5
2004)). 6
One problem with which the Appellant was involved is that of 7
preventing moisture from penetrating through a joint into the core of a 8
flooring panel. (See Spec., paras. [0003]-[06]; see also FF 1 and 2). The 9
Examiner correctly finds that one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to seal a 10
joint between a flooring panel and a connecting element would have had 11
reason to look to the sealing art, including seals for automotive structures. 12
(See Ans. 20). Foy does not address flooring systems. Nevertheless, it 13
describes a resilient seal having a sealing surface urged into contact with a 14
planar surface of a structural element, namely, a window panel 14. (See FF 15
6). Therefore, the teachings of Foy are reasonably pertinent to a particular 16
problem with which the inventor was involved. Foy is not non-analogous 17
art. 18
In Grafenauer, the Appellant proposed addressing the moisture 19
problem by providing a tight connection on the top of the joined panels. (FF 20
1 and 2; see also Spec., para. [0016]). This statement implies that another 21
problem with which the Appellant was involved was that of providing a tight 22
connection between the connecting element and the adjacent flooring panels. 23
Not only is Andrzejewski within the sealing art, but Andrzejewski describes 24
a sealing strip including an embedded metal carrier 8 designed to grip an 25
edge flange or tongue. (FF 7 and 8). Therefore, Andrzejewski is reasonably 26
Appeal No. 2010-001906
Application No. 11/533,634

15
pertinent to the problem of locking connected panels in the transverse 1
direction without the necessity of adding glue to the grooves or tongues used 2
for locking the panels so as to tighten the connection on the top of the joint 3
between a flooring panel and the connecting element. (See Ans. 22; see also 4
Spec., para. [0011]). Since the teachings of Andrzejewski are reasonably 5
pertinent to a particular problem with which the inventor was involved, 6
Andrzejewski is not non-analogous art. 7
Klein is distinguishable. In Klein, our reviewing court criticized the 8
Board for attempting to redefine in general terms the particular problem with 9
which the applicant was involved. See id. at 1351 n.1. Here, the statements 10
of the problems with which the Appellant was involved were taken from the 11
Appellant’s Specification and from the Appellant’s statements in 12
Grafenauer. In Klein, our reviewing court also criticized the Board because 13
the cited references addressed a problem different from that with which the 14
applicant was involved, namely, separating solid objects rather than “making 15
a nectar feeder with a movable divider to prepare different ratios of sugar 16
and water for different animals.” Id. at 1350-51. Here, the references 17
address the same sealing and joint tightening problems addressed by the 18
Appellant. The Appellant points to nothing in the holding of Klein 19
inconsistent with finding that Foy and Andrzejewski are not non-analogous 20
art. 21
The Appellant presents no persuasive argument suggesting error in the 22
rejection of claims 4, 13, 16 and 17. We sustain the rejection of these claims 23
under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grafenauer, Glowa and Foy. 24
Appeal No. 2010-001906
Application No. 11/533,634

16
Sixth Issue 1
Claim 21 recites a connecting element including “a clamp that 2
increases a spring force of the groove of the connecting element.” The 3
Examiner finds that neither Grafenauer nor Glowa describe this feature. 4
Instead, the Examiner correctly finds that Andrzejewski describes “a channel 5
shaped member comprising plastic (10), wherein the channel shaped 6
member includes a metal clamp (8) for strength and improved gripping 7
properties for engaging a flange (fig. 2; col. 1, lines 31-54; col. 2, lines 6-8
9).” (Ans. 11; see also FF 8). The Examiner concludes that it would have 9
been obvious “to modify the groove (channel) of Grafenauer, previously 10
modified by Glowa et al.[,] to include an inserted clamp corresponding with 11
the groove (channel) as taught by Andrzejewski et al. in order to provide 12
strengthening of the connecting element and improved gripping properties 13
(spring force) of the groove when engaging an adjacent panel.” (Id.) 14
The Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would 15
recognize that “gripping ribs 12 and serrations 14 [described in 16
Andrzejewski] provide the sealing mechanism and prevent removal, and that 17
there is no indication, whatsoever, that the clamp 8, itself, is designed to 18
increase a spring force, much less a spring force of a groove of a connecting 19
element (or prevent removal).” (App. Br. 25). In view of this argument, the 20
Appellant contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have had 21
reason to combine the teachings of Grafenauer, Glowa and Andrzejewski in 22
the fashion claimed. (Id.) 23
We adopt the Examiner’s reasoning in response to this argument: 24
Regarding the clamp, Examiner submits the 25
clamp (metal carrier, 8) of Andrzejewski et al. 26
would increase the spring force of the groove and 27
Appeal No. 2010-001906
Application No. 11/533,634

17
thus the gripping ability. It is submitted the 1
covering material (10) is of a plastic or rubber 2
material in which the metal core or carrier is added 3
for reinforcement (figs. 1-2; col. 2, lines 5-9). 4
Note the gripping rib noted by Appellant also 5
includes metal reinforcement in order to provide a 6
more resilient gripping rib for improved gripping. 7
As the carrier (8) of Andrzejewski et al. is of a 8
more resilient material (metal) than that of the 9
covering material (plastic or rubber), one of 10
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention 11
would [have] recognize[d] the inclusion of 12
reinforcement would [have] increase[d] the spring 13
force of the groove or in other words the 14
groove[’]s ability to resist deformation similar to 15
the gripping rib. If no reinforcement is present, the 16
groove connector of Andrzejewski et al. would be 17
more susceptible to deformation. 18
(Ans. 21-22; see also FF 7-9). 19
Since it was known to be desirable to ensure a tight connection on the 20
top of the joined panels in order to avoid penetration of moisture into the 21
core (FF 2); and since one of ordinary skill in the art familiar with the 22
teachings of Andrzejewski would have recognized that the metal carrier 8 23
contributed to the gripping ability of Andrzejewski’s channel-shaped strip, 24
one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to provide 25
Grafenauer’s connecting element 7 with an integral clamp embedded in the 26
connecting element 7 around the groove 4 in order to tighten the grip 27
between the connecting element 7 and an adjacent flooring panel 1. The 28
Appellant does not suggest that one of ordinary skill in the art might have 29
deemed the results of the modification unpredictable or that the modification 30
would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill. We sustain the rejection 31
Appeal No. 2010-001906
Application No. 11/533,634

18
of claims 8-11, 14 and 21-23 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over 1
Grafenauer, Glowa and Andrzejewski. 2
The Appellant separately addresses the rejections of claims 10, 14 and 3
18-20. (See App. Br. 32-34). Concluding that these separate arguments are 4
unpersuasive, we sustain the rejections of claims 10 and 14 under § 103(a) 5
as being unpatentable over Grafenauer, Glowa and Andrzejewski; and of 6
claims 18-20 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grafenauer, Glowa, 7
Foy and Andrzejewski. 8
9
DECISION 10
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-24. 11
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with 12
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). 13
14
AFFIRMED 15
16
17
18
Klh 19