Appeal No. 1995-4675
Application No. 07/875,452
contrary view, the appellants argue that these references
would not have provided an artisan with ordinary skill with
the requisite suggestion or reasonable expectation of success
vis à vis use of amorphous nylon as the barrier layer in
Tanner’s container structure. We are unpersuaded by this
argument.
The construction of the container defined by appealed
claim 1 differs from that of Tanner (e.g., see Figure 6) by
virtue of the claim requirement for “an amorphous nylon
layer.” As correctly indicated by the examiner, however,
although Tanner does not disclose amorphous nylon
specifically, he expressly teaches making his barrier layer
(see element 60 in Figure 6) from polyamide polymer (see line
45 in column 4) which is generic to amorphous nylon.
Moreover, Deak expressly teaches that amorphous polyamides
exhibit “excellent oxygen barrier properties” in containers of
the type under consideration (e.g., see lines 11 through 18 in
column 1). Contrary to the appellants’ argument, these
4(...continued)
the claim phrase “an amorphous nylon layer” cannot be properly
interpreted as encompassing blends of amorphous nylon and
semicrystalline polyamides of the type taught by Deak.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007