Appeal No. 1998-0275
Application No. 08/467,484
claims 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kallmann in view of Lee et al., Solomon and
Aulik.
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we concur with appellants that the
examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
for the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejections.
Although we do not subscribe to appellants' position that
Solomon is based on the use of oriented polypropylene ,1
appellants have advanced arguments pertaining to specific
claim limitations recited in independent claim 19 which have
not been addressed by the examiner. To wit, appellants submit
that there is no prior art disclosure of orienting the first
and second layers in the transverse direction to a degree
which is at least three times greater than the degree of
orientation present in the machine direction (paragraph
bridging pages 3 and 4 of brief), and "there is no disclosure
laminating a first layer to second layer so that the
We find no reference to polypropylene in the disclosure of Solomon,1
which seems directed to bi-axially-oriented polymeric films in general.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007