Appeal No. 96-2710
Application No. 08/164,598
Balloni references to show the advantages of flame treating
polypropylene polymer film. Accordingly, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare
appellants’ claimed film structure by incorporating the
silicone oil of Balloni to achieve improved slip
characteristics and utilize the flame treatment of both
Balloni patents to improve printability. We note that
appellants have presented no arguments based upon objective
evidence of non-obviousness that would serve to rebut the
prima facie case of obviousness.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 6 through 13, 15, and 17
through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kawakami
in view of Balloni(‘671) is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kawakami in view of Balloni(‘671) and
Balloni (‘992) is affirmed.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under
37 CFR § 1.136(a).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007