Appeal No. 2002-0306
Application No. 08/911,983
Shah and Walton are concerned with similarly structured shrink
films, as noted above. The appellant’s statement that Shah is
limited to a cast film is incorrect. Shah clearly teaches a
coextruded film (see, e.g. abstract, line 1) as claimed, which may
then be cast. Walton suggests a high blow-up ratio as claimed to
improve the shrinkage properties. We therefore agree with the
examiner that such a combination as claimed would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made.
The Rejection of Claim 15 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a)
The examiner has observed that:
Appellant’s comment regarding claim 15 is equally
unpersuasive. The two polyamide layers claimed with an
adhesive layer there-between merely amount to an obvious
duplication of the core layer and adhesive layer found in
each primary reference. To include two of each such layers
as part of the film for additional strength would certainly
be well within the skill of the routineer in this art
(Examiner’s Answer, page 4, lines 3-7).
The record is devoid of any evidence to support this
conclusion, which appears for the first time in the Examiner’s
Answer. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse this
rejection.
Summary of Decision
The rejection of Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wood or Shah in view of Walton is sustained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007