Appeal No. 2002-0306
Application No. 08/911,983
The appellant further urges that the materials of Walton,
Shah, and Wood are dissimilar and made by different processes.
(Appeal Brief, page 12, lines 10-23). We disagree. Again, both
Shah and Wood disclose films which are similarly structured (Shah
– a coextruded multiple layer film, abstract, line 1; Walton – an
extruded multiple layer film, column 6, lines 54-60), for similar
purposes, i.e. use as shrink wrap. The appellant is focusing on
dissimilar examples and not considering the references, and the
art, as a whole.
By way of more specific example, Shah discloses a polyamide
containing core layer 10 (column 4, lines 40-42) surrounded by
polymeric adhesive layers (column 4, lines 49-51) which is cladded
in outer layers which contain ethylene alpha olefin (column 4,
lines 57-65). The film is formed by extrusion and is also further
processed in conventional ways, e.g. collapsed, stretched, and
oriented (column 3, lines 19-28). One object of the invention is
to provide an oriented film with good shrink properties (column 2,
line 66 - column 3, line 2). Further, Shah’s tear propagation is
well within the claimed range (column 6, lines 55-61).
The appellant additionally urges that there is no motivation
to combine the teachings of Walton with respect to high blow-up
ratio with Wood or Shah to obtain a film with the properties of
claim 14. (Appeal Brief, page 13, lines 1-4). We disagree. Both
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007