Appeal No. 2004-2292
Application No. 09/747,537
i.e., an additional olefin copolymer could have been incorporated into the
core layer of Peiffer’s multilayered film.
The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over the
combined teachings of Peiffer, Blemberg and Arita. We affirm.
As stated above, the Examiner relies on the Arita reference to
establish that employing low density polyethylene in the skin layer of a
multilayered film would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art.
Appellants argue that the subject matter of claim 12 is patentable
for the reasons discussed regarding the rejection over Peiffer and
Blemberg. (Brief, p. 10). Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because
Appellants have not addressed the motivation presented by the Examiner
for combining the cited references. Thus, for the reasons presented by the
Examiner we affirm the rejection of claim 12.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9, 10, 13-30, 33, 35, 37, and 38
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over the combined teachings of Peiffer and Keller.
We affirm. We select claim 1 as representative.
The Peiffer and Keller references have been discussed above. The
Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to a person of
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007