Appeal 2007-1890
Application 10/444,624
vii) ethoxylated sorbitan ester, and
viii) alkanol; and
wherein the first outer layer comprises more than 3% and less than
8%, by weight of the first outer layer, of antifog agent.
The Examiner has relied on the following prior art references as
evidence of obviousness:
Blinka US 5,834,079 Nov. 10, 1998
Kuo US 5,962,092 Oct. 08, 1999
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Blinka in view of Kuo (Answer 3).
Appellants contend that Kuo does not contemplate films with low
oxygen transmission rates, and actually “teaches away” from low oxygen
transmission films (Br. 10).
Appellants contend that an oxygen barrier and/or oxygen scavenger
introduced into the film of Kuo would compromise and render useless the
film of Kuo for its intended purpose (Br. 11). Alternatively, Appellants
contend that if Blinka is viewed as modified by Kuo, then the high
transmission rates taught by Kuo would render Blinka unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose (id.).
The Examiner contends that Kuo has not been applied to teach the
oxygen transmission rate but as evidence that the use of antifog agents in
outer film layers was well known in the food packaging art (Answer 5).
Accordingly, the issue presented from the record in this appeal is as
follows: Would it have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013