Appeal No. 2003-0606
Application No. 09/281,837
penultimate paragraph). On the contrary, appellants submit at
page 2 of the Brief that "[f]or the purposes of this appeal, the
Board may consider all pending claims in one group that stands or
falls together." Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or
fall together with claim 1, and we will limit our consideration
of this appeal to the examiner's rejection of claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. We are in complete agreement with the
examiner, however, that the claimed subject matter would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the
meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly,
we will sustain the examiner's rejection for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the
following for emphasis only.
Appellants have not refuted the examiner's factual
determination that Schirmer, like appellants, discloses a process
for making a thermoplastic film by the blown film extrusion
process comprising extruding a molten thermoplastic polymer
through a tubular die to form a tube of molten polymer,
contacting the inner surface of the tube of molten polymer with
an aqueous solution, inflating the extrudate to form a blown
film, and then collapsing the blown film into a flat web.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007