Appeal No. 1997-1602
Application No. 08/298,088
OPINION
This rejection cannot be sustained.
As correctly indicated by the appellants in the brief, the teachings of the applied
references are disparate and would not have been combined by an artisan with
ordinary skill without the benefit of hindsight in the manner proposed by the examiner to
thereby obtain a cast extruded plastic film of the type defined by the independent claim
on appeal. For example, the primary references such as Bittscheidt are directed to
molding compositions for making articles such as building materials that are unrelated to
plastic films and the ultimate uses therefor with which the appealed claims and certain of
the secondary references are concerned. Thus, contrary to the examiner's position, an
ordinarily skilled artisan would not have found it obvious in the absence of hindsight to
modify these primary reference molding compositions for making articles such as building
materials in such a manner as to yield the here claimed cast extruded plastic film having
properties desirable for packaging of the type described earlier by combining the primary
reference molding composition teachings with the secondary
reference teachings including, by way of exemplification, the cast extruded film teaching of
Nakane and the blown extruded film teaching of Shih.
In short, the applied prior art contains no teaching or suggestion for combining the
references in the fashion urged by the examiner. From our perspective, therefore,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007