Appeal No. 96-2710
Application No. 08/164,598
USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Here, appellants have simply
combined materials known to be slip control agents for
propylene polymer films.
We further conclude that the prior art would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art that they
should make the claimed subject matter and has revealed that
in so making or carrying out, those of ordinary skill in the
art would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See
In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed.
Cir. 1991).
We next turn to consideration of the rejection of claim
14 which additionally requires flame treating an outer surface
of the film structure. We agree with and incorporate the
examiner’s rejection as set forth in the Answer, page 5. We
add only the following brief comment for emphasis.
Balloni(‘671), in Example 3, likewise, uses a flame treatment
to produce a desirable surface effect on the film. Hence,
Balloni (‘992) is needed only for its teaching of improved ink
receptivity as a result of the flame treatment. See
Balloni(‘992), column 3, lines 35-37. We conclude that it was
reasonable for the examiner to rely on the teachings of both
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007