Appeal No. 94-2995
Application 07/976,827
We refer to the main Brief and Reply Brief and to the Answer
for a complete exposition of the respective viewpoints advocated
by the appellants and the examiner concerning the above noted
rejection.
This rejection cannot be sustained.
On page 6 of the Answer, the examiner expresses his
conclusion of obviousness as follows:
One of ordinary skill, motivated by an
expected enhancement in resulting adhesive
layer bonding properties, would look to the
secondary reference where the presence of a
very similar adhesive composition improved
the resulting adhesion of the formed
laminated film, and substitute the
aforementioned PVOH-PVC containing adhesive
blend disclosed in Scopp in place of the EVOH
adhesive of Migliorini, and if desired,
further modify the substituted Scopp adhesive
composition through a substitution of
“equivalents”, i.e., polyvinylidene chloride
for the substituted polyvinyl chloride
composition, thereby forming the claimed
genus of laminated films, the resulting film
further also possessing the clearly inherent
claimed property of being “effective to
reduce transmission of [said] oxygen and
[said] moisture”.
Even when viewed in its most favorable light, the examiner’s
obviousness conclusion is quite plainly deficient in that the
applied references contain no teaching or suggestion concerning
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007