Appeal No. 2001-0199
Application 09/179,813
formed metal-plastic laminate to final depth. (Appeal Brief, page 3, line 22 - page 4 line
5).
The Rejection of Claims 20-26, 28 and 29 Under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) over Breitler
Claims 20-26, 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being
anticipated by Breitler. Breitler is said to teach a metal-plastic composite including a
metal layer 8 - 80 µm thick with plastic layers 20 - 50 µm thick on either side of the
metal layer. Aluminum and biaxially oriented polyamide are said to be preferred
materials for the layers, and Example 5 to illustrate a laminate having a 45 µm thick
aluminum layer between two 25 µm thick polyamide layers. The material is said to be
suitable for the stretch drawing of blister packs having from 5 to 50 individual
compartments having an exemplary recess diameter of 27 mm. (Examiner’s Answer,
page 3, lines 9 - 19). Finally, the Examiner finds that the Breitler containers are “free of
folds” since flatness after shaping is a property desired by the packaging industry and
an objective of Breitler is to provide packaging material with desirable packaging
properties (Examiner’s Answer, page 4, lines 1-4).
The Appellants’ principal argument is that as Breitler does not teach the claimed
process steps “or the significant and unexpected advantages thereof” (Appeal Brief,
page 7, lines 4-5; Reply Brief page 2, line 3 – page 4, line 9). The Appellants reiterate
on page 8, lines 4 – 9 of the Appeal Brief that “the Appellants obtain surprising and
unexpected results”. The Appellants attorney argues that the invention as claimed
enables one to process asymmetric laminates free of folds and wrinkles, obtaining high
sidewalls, and that these results are “surprising”, “unexpected” and “unobvious”.
(Appeal Brief, page 9, lines 4–15). As the present rejection relates to anticipation, not
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007