Milliken & Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 21, 2022

2021002182 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/458,103 03/14/2017 Franklin S. Love 7013A 8033 25280 7590 03/21/2022 Legal Department (M-495) P.O. Box 1926 Spartanburg, SC 29304 EXAMINER JUSKA, CHERYL ANN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1789 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/21/2022 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): patents@milliken.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FRANKLIN S. LOVE, PADMAKUMAR PUTHILLATH, and DALE S. KITCHEN Appeal 2021-002182 Application 15/458,103 Technology Center 1700 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9, and 11-16. Appeal Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed March 14, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action entered May 21, 2020 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed October 21, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); and Examiner’s Answer entered December 7, 2020 (“Ans.”). 2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Milliken & Company as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-002182 Application 15/458,103 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant states the invention relates to a washable multi-component floor mat. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 is reproduced below and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (Appeal Br. 8, Claims App.): 1. A multi-component floor mat comprising: (a) A textile component comprising (i) a first layer of tufted pile carpet formed by tufting face fibers through a primary backing layer, wherein the face fibers are dyed, printed, or combinations thereof, and (ii) at least one edge attachment means; and (b) A base component, wherein the base component is comprised of vulcanized rubber that contains recycled material, wherein the base component is flat having no recessed area, and wherein the base component contains at least one edge attachment means, wherein the at least one edge attachment means of the textile component is narrower in width than the edge attachment means of the base component; wherein the textile component is smaller in size than the base component such that at least a portion of the base component is visible in a top perspective view of the multi-component floor mat, and wherein the textile component and the base component are releasably attachable to one another via the at least one edge attachment means. Claim 15 is also independent and recites a method for installation of a floor mat having similar recitations as in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9-10, Claims App. Appeal 2021-002182 Application 15/458,103 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Yamamoto et al. (“Yamamoto”) US 4,361,925 Dec. 7, 1982 Kobayashi US 2004/0013849 A1 Jan. 22, 2004 Bailey WO 97/06029 Feb. 20, 1997 Xu CN 104095504A, citations to English translation of record Oct. 15, 2014 REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9, and 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Yamamoto, Kobayashi, Bailey, and Xu. Final Act. 3-7. OPINION We confine our discussion to claim 1, which is representative of the arguments made by Appellant with respect to the rejection on appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2013). The Examiner’s Rejection In rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Yamamoto, Kobayashi, Bailey, and Xu, the Examiner found Yamamoto discloses a multi-component floor mat as recited in claim 1, except for pile face fibers that are dyed, printed, or a combination thereof; a base component that is flat and is larger in size than a mat component (textile component); an edge attachment means of a mat component that is narrower in width than an edge attachment means Appeal 2021-002182 Application 15/458,103 4 of a base component; and the base material comprises vulcanized rubber containing recycled material. Final Act. 3-4. The Examiner found that it is conventional for floor mats having pile faces to be colored via dyeing or printing in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing mat that may be color coordinated with its surroundings. Final Act. 4, citing Kobayashi. Thus, the Examiner determined it would have been obvious to have dyed or printed the face yarns of Yamamoto’s floor mat. Id. As to a base portion without a recess, the Examiner found Kobayashi discloses separable multi-component floor mats where the base portion may contain a recess or be flat, and that when the base portion is flat, the edges typically extend beyond the edges of the textile portion of the mat. Final Act. 4-5. The Examiner found Kobayashi discloses flat bases are suitable for use in areas where low clearance is needed. Id. at 5, citing Kobayashi ¶ 39. Accordingly, the Examiner determined it would have been obvious to have modified the base of Yamamoto’s floor mat to have a flat base with a larger size than the textile portion in order to provide a floor mat having low clearance as disclosed in Kobayashi. Id. As to the recitation that at least one attachment means of the textile component is narrower in width than the edge attachment means of the base component, the Examiner found that Yamamoto discloses the anchoring mechanisms of the mat component (textile component) and the base component to be approximately the same size. Final Act. 5. The Examiner determined that in view of Bailey’s disclosure that mechanical fasteners for floor mats may differ in size, it would have been obvious to have adjusted the anchoring mechanisms in Yamamoto to have the configuration in Appeal 2021-002182 Application 15/458,103 5 claim 1 in order to provide for a greater surface of the base anchoring mechanism to engage with the mat anchoring mechanism. Id. at 5-6. The Examiner relied on Xu for the proposition that using recycled rubber materials in floor mats would have been an obvious modification of Yamamoto. Final Act. 6. Appellant’s Arguments Appellant argues the combination of references fails to teach or consider a floor mat that is both dyed and printed. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant argues the rejection does not address the size relationship between the top portion and bottom portion of the floor mat. Id. Appellant contends the rejection does not provide evidence that a floor mat having a flat base component is better than a recessed base component with respect to achieving low clearance and that achieving low clearance is not needed in the floor mat recited in claim 1. Id. at 5-6. Appellant argues Bailey teaches an edge attachment arrangement that is the opposite of that recited in claim 1 where the hook portion attached to the flooring portion is smaller in size than the loop portion on the top part of the floor mat. Id. at 6-7. Discussion We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As to Appellant’s contention that the prior art does not disclose face fibers that are both dyed and printed, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner’s position that Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 1, which recites the fiber may be dyed, printed, or combinations thereof. Ans. 8. Thus, claim 1 does not require the fibers to be both dyed and printed. Appeal 2021-002182 Application 15/458,103 6 Appellant does not identify with any particularity why it would not have been obvious to dye or print the face fibers in Yamamoto in view of Kobayashi’s disclosure that the mat component may be dyed or printed. Kobayashi ¶ 22. We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s position that the rejection does not address the relationship between the top and bottom portions of the floor mat for the reasons well-stated by the Examiner. Ans. 8-9. In particular, Kobayashi expressly discloses that the edges of the base of the floor mat extend beyond the textile portion of the mat. Kobayashi ¶ 39. Similarly, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the rejection does not provide evidence that a floor mat having a flat base is better than a recessed component with respect to low clearance. Ans. 8-10. Kobayashi expressly discloses embodiments with a recessed base or a flat base, and expressly discloses that the flat base is used in areas where low clearance is needed. Kobayashi ¶ 39. In addition, as the Examiner points out (Ans. 10), whether the Appellant is concerned with low clearance is not relevant to the obviousness determination, because Appellant’s reasoning for having a flat base need not be the same as the reasoning in the prior art. In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor.”). Last, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that Bailey discloses the opposite arrangement for the widths of the edge attachment means between the base component and textile component recited in claim 1. That is, as the Examiner points out, although Bailey exemplifies a smaller edge attachment means for the base component fastener than the mat Appeal 2021-002182 Application 15/458,103 7 component fastener (Bailey p. 5, ll. 4-7), Bailey generally discloses that the invention lies in the difference in sizes of the two fasteners (Bailey p. 4, l. 16 - 5, l. 3, claim 1), which fairly suggests a top mat fastener that is smaller than the base fastener. Ans. 11. Therefore, we are of the view that the Examiner’s reasoning is sufficiently supported by Bailey. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7- 9, and 11-16. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 11-16 103 Yamamoto, Kobayashi, Bailey, Xu 1, 2, 5, 7- 9, 11-16 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED