Appeal No. 2004-2292
Application No. 09/747,537
425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). A person of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to employ a modifier in the core layer of the
multilayered film of Schloegl in order to reduce the crystallinity of the core
layer and obtain a film with improved tear resistance as disclosed by
Keller.4
Appellants also refer to the Migliorini declaration to support their
arguments. (Brief, pp. 7-9). The Migliorini declaration is not persuasive
because it does not address the identified motivation for inclusion of a
modifier in the multilayered film of Schloegl. The declarant does not
address the reduction in the crystallinity of the core layer and the resulting
obtained film with improved tear resistance. The declarant’s comments
are directed Keller’s secondary orientation process. The declarant asserts
that the secondary orientation process creates a high degree of stress on
the previously stretched film which could lead to tearing. (Paragraph 11).
We note that the neither declarant or Appellants’ representative have
asserted that the film of Schloegl would not have a reduction in the
4Notwithstanding Appellants’ arguments, a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have reasonably expected that the film of Schloegl comprising a
modifier would have improved tear resistance and would have been capable
of undergoing a secondary stretching as described by the Keller reference.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007