Appeal No. 1995-4675
Application No. 07/875,452
reference teachings from our perspective would have suggested
making Tanner’s polyamide barrier layer from amorphous nylon
specifically based upon a reasonable expectation of obtaining
“excellent” barrier properties in accordance with the
disclosure of Deak.
In light of the foregoing, it is our determination that
the Tanner and Deak references establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter defined by the
independent claim on appeal.
We reach a corresponding determination for the separately
argued dependent claims on appeal. This is because we
perceive the features recited in these claims as being at
least generically known in the prior art as result effective.
For example, the particular layer construction defined by
dependent claim 2 would have been obvious to an artisan with
ordinary skill in light of the applied prior art (e.g., again
see Figure 6 of Tanner). Similarly, the material of
construction features such as the low density polyethylene
required by dependent claim 3 is expressly taught or at least
would have been suggested by Tanner (e.g., see element 56 in
Figure 6). Finally, it is our view that the dependent claim
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007