Appeal No. 1998-1416 Page 4
Application No. 08/062,736
what the appellants are claiming, but only that the claims on
appeal "read on" something disclosed in the reference (see Kalman
v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984)).
In the case before us, we determine that Jones discloses,
either expressly or inherently, every limitation of the
invention set forth in claims 18, 19 and 25. As found by the
examiner (answer, page 4), Jones describes a method for forming a
transparent barrier film including:
the steps of providing a flexible plastic substrate,
e.g., polypropylene, evaporating an aluminum oxide
barrier layer having a thickness within the presently
claimed range, i.e., 0.02 µm (200 Angstroms), directly
onto the flexible plastic substrate and forming a heat
seal layer on the barrier layer, as presently claimed
(col. 2, lines 15-22; col. 3, lines 27-29; col. 4,
lines 39-40; col. 5, lines 30-39, for instance). The
method of Jones provides materials that are “highly
gas- and liquid-impermeable” (col. 2, lines 18-20, for
instance) and, therefore, the barrier layer of Jones
necessarily is formed to reduce oxygen and water
permeability, as recited in the instant claims.
We further note that Jones particularly describes a
preference for the use of vacuum evaporation in depositing the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007