Appeal No. 1999-2661
Application 08/430,632
d) a polymeric sealant layer adhered to at least one of the outer layers.
The appealed claims, as represented by claim 11, are drawn to a thermoplastic multi-layer
film comprising at least the layers specified in the claim. According to appellant, the claimed
multi-layer film has good moisture and oxygen barrier properties.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Grancio et al. (Grancio) 4,386,187 May 31, 1983
Van Iseghem 4,681,797 Jul. 21, 1987
Bossaert et al. (Bossaert) 4,921,749 May 1, 1990
The examiner has advanced the following grounds of rejection on appeal:
claims 11 through 13 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
applicant regards as the invention;
claims 11 through 13 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
Van Iseghem in view of Bossaert; and
claims 11 through 13 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
Van Iseghem in view of Grancio.2
Appellant divides the appealed claims into two groups for purposes of appeal (brief, page
9). Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed claims 11 and 20 which are representative of
these groups. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1997).
We affirm the ground of rejection of claims 11 through 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Van Iseghem in view of Bossaert and reverse all other grounds of rejection
including the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Van Iseghem
in view of Bossaert.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellant, we
refer to the examiner’s answer and to appellant’s brief for a complete exposition thereof.
Opinion
As an initial matter, we must interpret the claim in light of the written description in
2 In the final rejection of November 12, 1998 (Paper No. 17), the examiner rejected the claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, enablement requirement, but did not advance this ground
on appeal or state that the ground has been withdrawn. We consider the ground of rejection to
have been withdrawn by the examiner.
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007