Appeal No. 2002-2261
Application No. 09/568,111
We understand appellants' argument to be that it is the
polyolefin layer which causes the increased oxygen impermeability
reported by Lacz '450. However, this argument is not supported
by the express disclosure in Lacz '450 that "[i]mpregnation of
the paper support with hydrophobically substituted amylose starch
in accordance with the method of the present invention greatly
diminishes the oxygen permeability of the support" (column 2,
lines 35-39), and that "[i]mpregnation of the paper sheet with
sufficient hydrophobically substituted amylose starch to reduce
oxygen permeability does not interfere with the subsequent
extrusion coating of polyethylene layers on the paper sheet"
(column 2, lines 42-46). In our view, Lacz '450 makes it quite
clear that the increase in oxygen permeability is attributed to
the coating of amylose starch.
Appellants also contend that neither Lacz '450 nor
Lacz '473, singularly or in combination, appreciates that
appellants' hydrophobically modified, high amylose starch-
containing coating confers superior Gurley porosity (air
resistance) compared to a hydrophobically modified low amylose
starch-containing coating. Appellants invite comparison of
samples 1 and 4 in Table 1 found at page 12 of the specification.
However, although appellants maintain that "Lacz '450 only
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007