Appeal No. 2001-1884
Application No. 08/718,692
preferred over a low density polyethylene film “for use with a
requirement for high heat resistance.” See pages 2 and 3.
Given these teachings, we determine that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been led to employ the polyethylene
film taught by Asao, in lieu of a low density polyethylene film,
motivated by a reasonable expectation of successfully forming a
laminate useful for packaging hot items.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 50, 51, 53 through 55, 57, 66, 69 through 71 and 73
through 75 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, since our reasons for
affirming this rejection are materially different from those
proffered by the examiner (we rely on Take and Asao only), we
denominate our affirmance as including a new ground of rejection
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
In addition to affirming the examiner’s rejection of one or
more claims, this decision contains a new ground of rejection
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b). 37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides that
“[a] new ground of rejection shall not be considered final for
purposes of judicial review.”
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007