Appeal No. 1996-2963 Page 11
Application 07/952,427
it would have been obvious to construct Mohr’s container with
the materials disclosed by Woo including using a “blend of
polypropylene, styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene (SBS) and
ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA)....”
According to appellants (brief, pages 16 and 17),
however, Woo does not disclose or suggest forming an inner
surface portion of a container sidewall with SBS in a manner
corresponding to the claimed container, rather Woo discloses
forming an intermediate
tie layer therewith. We observe that the examiner does not
specifically address appellants’ arguments regarding this
rejection in the answer. Moreover, the disclosure of Woo
(see, e.g., column 3, lines 10-49) appears to generally
support appellants’ viewpoint. Hence, on this record, we will
not sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 31.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1-7, 9 and 11-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mohr in view of Meruelo and to reject claims
8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mohr
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007