Appeal No. 1998-0119 Page 5
Application No. 08/466,171
The Rejection under § 103
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other
ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability," whether on the grounds of
anticipation or obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
On the record before us, the examiner relies upon a combination of two references
to reject the claimed subject matter and establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
The examiner finds that Keung, “uses a polypropylene core layer instead of a core
layer derived from a high density polyethylene.” See the Office action mailed July 9,
1996, page 5, Paper No. 3. In addition, the examiner finds that, “[t]he prior art also
differs from the present claims in that various anti-blocking agents are disclosed. . . .
whereas present claims 18-21 require that layer (c) comprise crosslinked hydrocarbyl-
substituted polysiloxane, “ anti-blocking agents. Id, page 6. With respect to each of the
distinction, the examiner argues that, “HDPE could be used in place of polypropylene in
making multilayered films and that, “[p]articulate cross-linked hydrocarbyl-substituted
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007