Appeal No. 1997-3497 Page 9
Application No. 08/312,295
Moreover, as found by the examiner (answer, page 4), it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the stretching ratio employed in making the product film
of Shiga in light of the teachings of Matsumoto to optimize the
physical properties of the film so as to correspond to the
stretching ratio employed by appellants in making their film.
See, e.g., column 8, lines 29-42 of Matsumoto. Consequently, we
agree with the examiner that the combined teachings of Shiga and
Matsumoto would have rendered the herein claimed subject matter
prima facie obvious on that basis as well.
In light of the above, and for the reasons set forth in the
answer, we do not find appellants' arguments set forth in the
brief to be persuasive. Appellants reliance on Crass and Suzuki
and possibly Schloegl in rebuttal is misplaced. As set forth by
the examiner (answer, page 8), those references are drawn to
different films and have no bearing on the propriety of the
rejection before us. It is significant that appellants have not
substantiated their arguments with any objective evidence
establishing that the product film of Shiga would not have water
vapor transmission and modulus of elasticity properties
corresponding to those appellants attribute to their product. In
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007