Appeal No. 96-2710
Application No. 08/164,598
Appellants, however, have not argued the separate
patentability of the balance of the claims. Accordingly, we
will treat the balance of the claims as standing or falling
together. We select
claim 1 as representative of appellants’ claimed subject
matter and limit our consideration to claims 1 and 14. 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(1995).
We have carefully considered appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we are essentially in complete
agreement with the examiner that the claimed subject matter is
unpatentable in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly,
we will sustain the examiner's rejections for essentially
those reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the
following primarily for emphasis.
The sole issue before us is whether the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness based upon the
rejection of record. Appellants argue that, “[t]he propylene
polymer film containing crosslinked silicone resin and
hydroxy-fatty acid glyceride, both for improved slipperiness,
as disclosed in the primary reference of Kawakami, is not
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007