Appeal No. 2003-0740
Application No. 09/099,188
Peterson or Woo for the substitution of EVA into the film of Smith,
these references do not remedy the deficiency in the examiner’s
rejection as discussed above.
The examiner sets forth alternate proposed modifications to
the references on pages 9-10 of the Answer, namely arguing that
Carveth would have led the “ordinary artisan” to include an EVA
layer as an “intermediate layer of tie material” to replace the tie
material disclosed by Smith in Table I, examples 4 and 5. However,
as correctly argued by appellants (Reply Brief, pages 10-12),
adhesive polymers or “tie materials” are used to bond dissimilar
polymers that do not normally adhere to each other. The fact that
Smith exemplifies films with SEBS alone as a tie material between a
SEBS and PP/PE layer and a copolyester layer (Table I, examples 4
and 5) does not provide a teaching that EVA would have been
suitable as a tie layer in the film of Smith, contrary to the
examiner’s reliance on melting points alone to support his
reasoning (Answer, page 10). The examiner has failed to establish
by convincing evidence or reasoning that one of ordinary skill in
this art would have employed EVA as a tie material for the films
disclosed by Smith in Table 1, i.e., that EVA would provide the
required adhesion and compatibility with the adjacent layers or
films.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007