Appeal No. 1996-1792 Page 6
Application No. 08/220,244
patentability" (answer, page 4). With regard to the
alternative § 103 rejection over Smith in view of Darr, the
examiner concludes that using "non recycled HDPE instead of
recycled HDPE would have been obvious ... depending on the
properties desired in the resultant container" (answer, page
4).
However, the examiner has not adequately explained how
Smith alone or in combination with Darr would have suggested
the claimed three layer bottle arrangement made of the same
resin, especially the claimed light transmission resistant
black inner layer sandwiched between color opaque white outer
layers. As already noted above, Smith does not teach the use
of layers made of the same resins, nor does Smith teach the
claimed light transmission resistant black inner layer.
Although Darr teaches the use of the same resin for different
layers, Darr does not teach or suggest forming the claimed
light transmission resistant black inner layer.
The examiner simply has not furnished any reasonable
explanation as to how the individual teachings of Smith and
Darr are proposed to be combined so as to arrive at the claimed
invention.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007