Appeal No. 2006-1117 Page 6
Application No. 10/461,308
col. 2, ll. 29-31). Accordingly, we determine that Rayburn clearly
describes multilayer film structures.
Appellants argue that Rayburn describes the web as a single
layer film comprising preferably PET or alternatively PPS or PEN,
noting that the language “such film” or “alternately” is singular
and there is no teaching in Rayburn of making the webs of different
polymers (Brief, pages 3-4, citing Yoshii et al., U.S. Patent No.
4,756,064, for the method of making the webs of Rayburn; Reply
Brief, pages 2-3). Appellants further argue that the Rayburn
disclosure of the use of “similar” films in different webs “can
denote only that the two webs are comprised of the same polymer”
(Brief, page 6, emphasis omitted; Reply Brief, page 3).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. As correctly found
by the examiner, Rayburn clearly disclose at least two webs in a
multilayer film structure (Answer, page 5; see col. 6, ll. 41-49,
and Figure 3). As also correctly found by the examiner, for each
laminate, Rayburn discloses that the laminate is comprised of two
relatively thick webs of metallized dielectric film “such as PET,
PPS, or PPN” since these thick films tend to be self-supporting
(col. 2, ll. 28-36; see the Answer, page 3). We determine that a1
Appellants do not argue or dispute the examiner’s finding1
that “PPN” as disclosed by Rayburn is an abbreviation for
poly(1,3-propylene 2,6-naphthalate)(Answer, page 3)(see the Brief
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007