Appeal No. 1997-0533
Application No. 08/353,916
bridging pages 3-4). The examiner further finds that it is
conventional in the art to extrude a tie layer to bond a metal
foil to a paper web, citing Andersson as support for this
conventional bonding process step (Answer, page 4). Finally,
the examiner finds that Brinley teaches embossing and
laminating a polymer web to a paper film simultaneously (Id.).
Accordingly, the examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious “to perform the laminating and embossing steps
simultaneously as suggested by Brinley to eliminate the
separate lamination step in Anderson” as well as use the
conventional extrusion method to tie layers as shown by
Andersson (Id.).
Our reviewing court has stated the proper analysis under
§ 103 as follows:3
Where claimed subject matter has been rejected as
obvious in view of a combination of prior art
references, a proper analysis under § 103 requires,
inter alia, consideration of two factors: (1)
whether the prior art would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art that they should make the
claimed composition or device, or carry out the claimed
process; and (2) whether the prior art would
also have revealed that in so making or carrying out,
In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 14423
(Fed. Cir. 1991).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007