Appeal No. 2004-2292
Application No. 09/747,537
desired crystallinity has improved tear resistance during secondary
orientation. (Col. 5, ll. 1-10).
The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to add a polyolefin modifier to the core
layer of Schloegl in order to reduce the crystallinity of the core layer.
(Answer, p. 8). The resulting multilayered film would also have the property
of improved tear resistance as disclosed by Keller. (Col. 5).
Appellants argue that one skilled in the art would not have been
motivated to look to the teachings of Keller to modify Schloegl because of
the fundamentally different techniques used to produce the films of
Schloegl and Keller. Specifically, Appellants argue that the Schloegl films
are produced by conventional biaxial orientation techniques while the
Keller films are produced by a process that includes an unconventional
secondary orientation. (Brief, pp. 7-9).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. It is not necessary for the
Schloegl reference to require a secondary stretching process for a person
of ordinary skill in the art to have motivation to include a modifier. The test
for obviousness is what the combined teachings of those references would
have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007