Appeal No. 96-3690
Application 08/234,516
led a person having ordinary skill in the art to the claimed subject matter.
Although Bothe does not disclose the specific properties which are improved by
adding terpenes to the polypropylene, there is a suggestion by Bothe to blend low-molecular
weight terpene resins such as beta-pinene and limonene to any of the propylene layers. The
fact that appellants may have discovered the beta-pinene and/or limonene blended with
polypropylene exhibits odor barrier properties in a composition which is chemically similar to
that disclosed in Bothe, in and of itself, is not enough to make the claimed subject matter
unobvious. In re Woodruff and In re Wilder, supra. There must be a showing of unexpected
differences between the properties of the compound recited in the claimed composition and
that possessed by Bothe. In re Spada, supra. For the reasons discussed above with respect
to the rejection of the claims for obviousness over Isaka, on this record we do not find that
appellants have not made an adequate showing to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness
established by the teachings of Bothe. Accordingly, for these reasons, the examiner’s
rejection of claims 14-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Bothe is affirmed.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner’s rejection of claims 14-16 and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Isaka is reversed while the rejection of claims 14-19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Isaka and the same claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Bothe are
affirmed. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
In addition to affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 14-19, this decision contains
-12-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007