Appeal No. 1997-1620 Page 4
Application No. 08/409,959
by the appellants), we remain of the opinion expressed on pages
6-7 of our earlier decision that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to have selected a
thermoplastic material which is biaxially-oriented and a
multilayer structure for use as Wiley's thermoplastic
material in view of Wiley's teaching that the thermoplastic
material may be one of many commercially available such as
polypropylene and Janocha's teaching that biaxially draw-
oriented thermoplastic film (polypropylene is disclosed as
one material) provides a film of particularly high inherent
ridigity and is neither tear-starting nor tearing-off. The
suggestion for this modification comes not from the
appellants' disclosure but from the teachings and
suggestions from the applied prior art. In that regard,
Wiley clearly teaches the thermoplastic material may be
polypropylene. While Wiley does not specifically teach the
species of biaxially-oriented multilayered polypropylene,
Janocha's teaching of biaxially-oriented multilayered
polypropylene shows that the species was a known material
suitable for wrapping.
In light of the foregoing, the appellants' request for
rehearing is granted to the extent of reconsidering our
decision, but is denied with respect to making any change
thereto.
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007