Appeal No. 1997-2837 Page 6
Application No. 08/377,365
section of the supplement amendment accompanying the brief and
the portions of appellants’ specification referred to therein.
That amendment was approved for entry by the examiner (answer,
page 4) .1
Consequently, in addition to the obviousness rationale
furnished by the examiner in the answer, we find that Bothe
reasonably suggests a product film that substantially corresponds
to the film of appellants’ claim 1 based on the overlapping
amounts of migratory antistatic and slip additives to be used as
taught by Bothe. While appellants may not directly add such
additives to the base and outer (top) layer(s) prior to finishing
the manufacture of their product, it is clear, on this record,
that the finished multi-layer product film may include such
additives in those base and outer layers by way of migration.
In this regard, we note that claims 1, 15 and 18 and the
claims which depend therefrom are drawn to a product that is
described, at least partially, in terms of the process by which
it is made. The patentability of such claims is determined based
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007