Appeal No. 2002-0306
Application No. 08/911,983
invention, refer to claims 14 and 15 reproduced above.
The Rejection of Claim 14 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a)
The examiner has found that Wood teaches a multilayer film
laminate having a core EVA copolymer layer, polymeric adhesive
layers, and outer ethylene alpha olefin copolymer layers. The
film can be extruded or hot blown and any suitable number of
layers may be used (Paper #15, page 2, line 17 - page 3, line 6).
The examiner has additionally found that Shah discloses a
coextruded multilayer film with a polyamide containing core layer,
polymeric adhesives, and polyethylene layers, which can be heated
and blown. (Id., page 3, lines 7-19).
Finally, the examiner has found that Walton discloses a
process for making multilayer shrink wrap film using a high blow
up ratio to achieve good machine and transverse direction shrink
wrap characteristics (Id., page 3, line 22 - page 4, line 20).
The examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious
to have used the production techniques of Walton in the films of
Wood or Shah to fabricate films having blow up ratios of greater
than or equal to 2.5:1 or more in order to provide good machine
and transverse direction shrink characteristics. (Id., page 4,
line 21 - page 5, line 2).
The appellant, on the other hand, argues that Walton’s blow-
up ratio is in the context of a specific, unique film. (Appeal
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007