Appeal No. 1995-4675
Application No. 07/875,452
obviousness rejections which include the Löfgren reference3
are improper.
It follows that we will not sustain the examiner’s §
102(b) rejection of claims 1 and 2 as being anticipated by
Löfgren nor his § 103 rejections of claims 3 through 18 as
being unpatentable over Löfgren in view of Gibbons or
alternatively Gibbons in view of Löfgren.
Concerning the § 103 rejection based on Tanner in view of
Deak, the examiner proposes that, “[s]ince Tanner ... teaches
the use of a polyamide as a barrier layer and amorphous nylon
is known to provide good barrier property to oxygen as taught
by Deak, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art
to have utilized amorphous nylon as the barrier layer in the
structure of Tanner” (Answer, page 4) . In support of their 4
3We here clarify that these obviousness rejections
propose using Löfgren’s layer of amorphous nylon mixed with
EVOH and do not propose using amorphous nylon alone as a
barrier layer.
4The examiner additionally expresses the alternative
position that “Appellants’ instant claims are broad enough to
include the barrier layer blends of Deak which also include
amorphous nylon” (Answer, page 10). For the reasons
previously discussed with respect to the Löfgren reference,
however, we agree with the appellants’ basic viewpoint that
(continued...)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007