Appeal 2007-1906
Application 11/127,887
(C) a second skin layer having an upper surface and a
lower surface wherein the upper surface of the second skin layer
underlies the lower surface of the base layer, and the second skin layer
comprises a blend of a polyethylene and a propylene homopolymer or
copolymer, and the multilayer film has been oriented in the machine
direction at a stretch ratio of from about 2:1 to about 9:1 and then heat
set or annealed to provide dimensional stability.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Freedman US 6,461,706 B1 Oct. 8, 2002
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 15-18, 20-22, and 24-32 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Freedman. We affirm.
“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997);
accord Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d
1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1995). However, anticipation by a prior art reference
does not require that the reference recognize either the inventive concept of
the claimed subject matter or the inherent properties that may be possessed
by the prior art reference. See Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co.,
814 F.2d 628, 633, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S.
827 (1987).
Anticipation under this section is a factual determination. See In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1283 (Fed.
Cir. 1991) (citing In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567
(Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 10 are argued as a group and claims 15-18, 20-22,
and 24-34 are argued together as another group. We select claims 1 and 26
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013