Appeal No. 2001-1884
Application No. 08/718,692
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 41 and
60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Bradley, Shiraki, Asao and Martin. The examiner
takes the position (Answer, page 6) that:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to have further modified the method of the
references as combined by also subjecting the films to ozone
in addition to corona discharge as taught by Martin et al.
for surface treating polymers for bonding, [u]sing corona
with or without ozone would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art for activating the films for
bonding as taught by Martin et al.
The appellants do not challenge the examiner’s position.5 See
the Brief, pages 14-15. Rather, the appellants only argue that
Martin does not remedy the deficiencies of Bradley, Shiraki and
Asao. Id. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 41 and 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons
indicated supra.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 50, 51,
53 through 55, 57, 66 through 71 and 73 through 75 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
5 The appellants also acknowledge that claims 41 and 60
stand or fall together with claim 39. See the Brief, page 7.
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007