Appeal No. 2002-0306
Application No. 08/911,983
Brief, page 11, lines 13-14).
We disagree with the appellant’s narrow reading of Walton. A
fair reading of Walton’s disclosure teaches one of ordinary skill
in the art that the high-blow up ratio or the so-called double
bubble method may be used upon the polymers of Walton with
particular benefit. Walton also teaches general suitability of
the processes as well for the same benefit in other polymers –
e.g. for increased shrinkage (See, e.g. column 13, lines 18-44).
The appellant further contends that Walton is concerned with
the shrink characteristics, not the tear characteristics. (Appeal
Brief, page 11, line 28 - page 12, line 6).
While this is true, we observe that the motivation in the
prior art to combine the references need not be identical to that
of the applicant to establish obviousness. See In re Kemps,
97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996), citing
In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir.
1990)(en banc). Because Walton suggests an improvement to be
attained by the claimed blow-up ratio, it would have been obvious
to make the combination advanced by the Examiner, even if for a
different purpose than the appellants. We also observe that Shah
has as a stated object producing a shrink-wrap film (column 2,
line 66 - column 3, line 2); thus, viewed as a whole, the combined
art has a similar purpose.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007