Appeal No. 1997-1516
Application No. 08/326,501
(a) Claims 1, 2, 6, 8 and 9 over Hosoda;
(b) Claims 1-10 over Hosoda in view of Fagan;
(c) Claims 1-10 over Keeling in view of Groff.
Both appellant and the examiner agree that all the
appealed claims stand or fall together. However, inasmuch as
the examiner gives separate treatment to independent claim 2,
which includes a feature not recited in independent claim 1,
we will separately address the patentability of claim 2.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 3-10 stand or fall together.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8 and
9 under § 102 over Hosoda. We will not sustain this rejection
because Hosoda does not specifically describe a polypropylene
coating layer on a paper substrate as required by the appealed
claims. The examiner refers to the reference teaching that
the support sheet may "include a paper base, non woven
fabrics, polymeric films and metal foils. These may be used
either alone or in the form of a lamination thereof" (column
3, lines 13-16). Hosoda further discloses that polypropylene
may be a suitable polymeric film (column 3, lines 24-27).
However, Hosoda neither exemplifies nor expressly discloses an
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007