Ex parte BADER et al. - Page 7




              Appeal No. 1998-0119                                                                     Page 7                 
              Application No. 08/466,171                                                                                      


              predictable layer interactions and ultimate film performance.   In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d                           

              488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991).                                                                

              As to the utilization of the claimed anti-blocking agent, on the record before us, the                          

              only evidence disclosing the claimed hydrocarbyl crosslinked polysiloxane comes from                            

              appellants’ own specification.  We find no disclosure in either of the references of record                     

              directed to the specific crosslinked siloxane component.  Moreover, the anti-blocking                           

              agent is one which needs to be compatible with a high density polyethylene containing                           

              multilayer film.  There is however, no evidence of record to suggest that hydrocarbyl                           

              crosslinked polysiloxanes, even if per se known, would be compatible with the                                   

              multilayered film composition of the claimed subject matter.  Accordingly, the examiner                         

              has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claimed subject                   

              matter before us.                                                                                               

              It is well settled that the examiner must show reasons that the skilled artisan                                 

              confronted with the same problems as the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed                          

              invention, would select the elements from the cited prior art references for combination in                     

              the manner claimed.  We determine that there is no reason, suggestion, or motivation to                         

              combine the references in the manner proposed by the examiner.  Accordingly, the                                











Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007