Appeal No. 2001-1884
Application No. 08/718,692
formed across the interface between the juxtaposed surfaces
of the components. It is a unique characteristic of the
present process that the bond between the two components can
be controlled by regulating the duration of their exposure
to plasma activation, the plasma current, the temperature to
which the activated components are heated, and how long they
are heated. By controlling the process parameters,
laminates having widely different lamination strengths can
be provided to satisfy different requirements.
Thus, we determine that it would have been prima facie obvious to
provide desired bonding strengths, including the “permanent
bonding” strength, to the webs described in Bradley, to meet the
packaging requirement for a given product. See also the
statements in the specification highlighted above.
The appellants appear to argue that the permanent bonding of
the claimed webs can only be obtained by using a combination of a
particularly extruded polyethylene film and a non-chemical
activation treatment. See the Brief, pages 10-11. However, this
argument is not supported by any objective evidence. See De
Blauwe, 736 F.2d at 705, 222 USPQ at 196; Lindner, 457 F.2d at
508, 173 USPQ at 358. Specifically, the appellants have not
proffered any evidence that the webs, including the polyethylene
films, described in Bradley cannot be “permanently bonded” via
controlling the process parameters taught in Bradley.
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 39, 40, 49, 52, 54, 56 through 59 and 66 under
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007