Ex Parte Schwark et al - Page 6

                Appeal 2007-1890                                                                                
                Application 10/444,624                                                                          

                134 USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1962); cf., In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039-                          
                40, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986).                                                         
                       Applying the preceding legal principles to the factual findings in the                   
                record of this appeal, we determine that the Examiner has properly                              
                established a prima facie case of obviousness, which case has not been                          
                adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments and evidence.  As shown by                         
                factual finding (1) listed above, and not disputed by Appellants, we                            
                determine that Blinka discloses a multilayer film identical to the multilayer                   
                film recited in claim 1 on appeal with two exceptions:  (1) Blinka is silent                    
                regarding the oxygen transmission rate of the oxygen barrier layer; and (2)                     
                Blinka does not disclose the use of an antifog agent (Answer 3).  As shown                      
                by factual findings (2) and/or (3) listed above, we determine that it was well                  
                known in the packaging art for oxygen-sensitive food products to use antifog                    
                agents in an outer layer film to produce a clear view of the final product for                  
                the consumer, as well as other benefits.1  As shown by factual finding (3)                      
                listed above, we determine that Appellants admit that it was known to use                       
                antifog agents in packaging films, and typical films included antifog agents                    
                in both outside layers.  We note that claim 1 on appeal does not exclude the                    
                second outer layer from including an antifog agent since clause c) of claim 1                   
                recites the open transitional term “comprising.”  Accordingly, we determine                     
                                                                                                               
                1 As correctly stated by the Examiner (Answer 5), Appellants’ argument that                     
                the oxygen transmission rate of Kuo is much higher than the rate recited in                     
                claim 1 on appeal (Br. 10) is irrelevant to the issue presented in this appeal.                 
                We also note that the oxygen transmission rate of Kuo cannot be compared                        
                with the claimed rate since the disclosed rate of Kuo is applicable to the                      
                entire multilayer film while the claimed rate is directed solely to the oxygen                  
                barrier layer (compare Kuo, Abstract, and claim 1 on appeal, clause d).                         
                                                       6                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013