Appeal No. 2003-0029
Application No. 09/385,933
formed by a blown film extrusion process, annealing the film and stretching the
resultant annealed film to form the microporous film. (Col. 3, l. 57 to col. 4, l. 4). Yu
‘911 discloses the film is formed by blown film extrusion, however, the blow up ratio
is not specified.
The Examiner’s motivation for combining the teachings of Best with either Yu
‘218 or Yu ‘911 is the same and appears on pages 6 and 7 of the Answer.
Specifically, the Examiner concludes “it would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Yu (‘281) [Yu
‘911] and Best motivated by the desire to produce a microporous membrane with
improved tear resistant properties in order to produce a battery separator with
increased durability.” (Answer, p. 6) [for Yu ‘911, see page 7].
When determining the patentability of a claimed invention which combines
known elements, “the question is whether there is something in the prior art as a
whole to suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the
combination. [Citations omitted].” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir.
1984). In the present case, we answer this question in the negative. The Examiner
asserts that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to optimize the tear
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007