Appeal 2007-1482
Application 10/484,149
polycarbonate outer layer. Also, the Specification states that for purposes of
the present invention, polycarbonates "may form the outer layer alone or in a
mixture with other plastics compatible therewith…[such as] certain
polyesters" (para. bridging pages 4-5).
Appealed claims 1-3, 5-10 and 15-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(e) as being unpatentable over Otawa in view of Taubitz.
Appellants have not set forth an argument that is reasonably specific
to any particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, all the appealed claims
stand or fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection for the reasons set
forth in the Answer and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
There is no dispute that Otawa, like Appellants, discloses a layered
composite material comprising the presently claimed polyolefin backing
layer, intermediate ply layer and heat-cured layer on the intermediate ply,
but does not teach polycarbonates as the outer layer. Instead, Otawa teaches
polyesters for the outer layer. However, as explained by the Examiner,
Taubitz discloses that it was known in the art that mixing polycarbonates
with polyesters provides "improved mechanical properties, in particular an
improved impact strength" (col. 1, ll. 13-14). Consequently, we find no
error in the Examiner's reasoning that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a polycarbonate in the polyester outer
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013