Appeal No. 2005-2515
Application No. 09/911,532
using two different materials in coextrusion. (Brief at pages 5-6.) Appellants argue that
the Utsumi references teach their application as monolithic, single layer films which is
very different from the birefringent films of Rogers. (Brief at pages 4-5.) Appellants
argue that due to the very different applications and the corresponding different features
and requirements of the Utsumi references relative to the Rogers reference, the
examiner must have relied upon impermissible hindsight to use PEN in a multilayer film.
Additionally, the coextrusion process raises considerations with regards to the
coextruded materials that are not of concern when making a monolithic film. Appellants
argue that Rogers acknowledges that PET lends itself to the coextrusion process and
that this means that other materials do not lend themselves to coextrusion. Appellants
argue that since Utsumi does not provide guidance about the use of PEN to a
coextrusion process that at most this is an invitation to try which falls short of the
standard required for a prima facie case of obviousness. (Brief at page 5.) We
disagree with appellants, find that the claim is directed to an article of manufacture and
does not expressly require a specific process, and we find no express limitations which
would require a coextrusion process. Therefore, this argument is not commensurate in
scope with the instant claim language, and we do not find the argument persuasive.
The examiner maintains that Utsumi ‘772 and Utsumi ‘953 teach and suggest
that PEN is has advantages over PET and that skilled artisans would have been
motivated to use PEN in the multilayer film of Rogers to replace the PET to improve
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007