Appeal No. 2005-0486
Application No. 09/887,836
led us to conclude that the examiner’s rejections are not
sustainable.
OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 through 5
as being obvious over Saad in view of Satoh
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set
forth on pages 4-6 of the Answer. Appellant’s position
regarding this rejection is set forth on pages 4-6 of the
Brief, and on pages 3-6 of the Reply Brief.
On page 8 of the answer, the examiner responds to
appellant’s position regarding this rejection. Appellant
argues that the teachings of Saad and Satoh are not
combinable because the graft copolymerization mixture
according to Satoh is incompatible with the coextrusion
process detailed by Saad. In response, the examiner states
that his rejection proposes to replace the adhesive of Saad
with the adhesive of Satoh. Answer page 9. The examiner
also states that appellant’s argument depends upon the
method of forming the laminate, and therefore not germane
to the laminate product claimed. Answer page 9.
We cannot agree with the position taken by the
examiner. Firstly, as correctly pointed out by appellants
in the reply brief, the examiner’s proposal to replace the
adhesive layer in Saad with the adhesion layer of Satoh
does not suggest the claimed invention because such a
combination lacks the buytylated phenolic antioxidant.
Reply Brief, pages 3-4.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007