Appeal 2006-2814
Application 10/331,582
on Marotta for a teaching that it is well-known in the art to utilize a
cavitating agent having a median particle size of 1.5 microns or less in a core
layer of a label. Answer 4. The Examiner maintains that it would have been
obvious to have modified Marks’ core layer to include a cavitating agent
having a median particle size of 1.5 microns or less for the purpose of
providing a metallized surface with a bright mirrored appearance, as taught
by Marotta. Answer 4.
Appellant argues that Marks teaches away from adding a cavitating
agent to the core. According to Appellant, Marks teaches that void-creating
additives must be excluded from the core to obtain a label having a
metallized suface with a bright mirrored appearance. Br. 14. Appellants
reference several paragraphs in Marks as teaching that inclusion of an
opacifying, void-creating additive in the core yields a metal layer that is dull
and lacks high brilliance and gloss. For example, Appellant directs us to
paragraph [0012] of Marks which reads:
It has been determined that the inclusion of as little as 1-2%
calcium carbonate void-creating additive in the core adversely
affects the final metal brilliance of the metallized film.
Appellant maintains that Marotta is silent with respect to brilliance or gloss,
Br. 13, and both references fail to recognize the effect of surface roughness,
Br. 15.
The Examiner acknowledges that Marks teaches that inclusion of a
cavitating agent in the core adversely affects the final metal brilliance of the
metallized film. However, the Examiner maintains that Marks “still
teaches that it is well-known in the art to include a cavitating agent in the
core layer.” Answer 9 (citing Marks, [0002] lines 6-11). According to the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013