Appeal No. 2003-0358
Application 08/982,958
laminate of appealed claims 1 and 32, or explained the reason(s) why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have made such modifications (id., pages 3-4; see also brief, pages 13-16 and 23-25).
We note here that appellant further discusses Noel FIG. 4 in which multilayer web 126 is
a laminate consists of two films, one of which, multilayer film 130, delaminates into two separate
film portions, at least one portion made permeable by perforation, and is bonded to impermeable
film 128, citing col. 6, line 19, to col. 7, line 15 (brief, pages 15-16 and 24). We include
consideration of this embodiment of Noel for completeness even though not expressly relied on
by the examiner.
A reference can provide the suggestion or motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the teachings thereof, either expressly or by inference. See B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft
Braking Sys. Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1582, 37 USPQ2d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“When
obviousness is based on a particular prior art reference, there must be a showing of a suggestion
or motivation to modify the teachings of that reference. [Citation omitted.] This suggestion or
motivation need not be expressly stated. [Citation omitted.]”). In this respect, it is well settled
that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of
ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom, see In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782-83 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Preda, 401
F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968), presuming skill on the part of this person.
In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
We agree with appellant that the examiner has not established on this record that, prima
facie, Noel would have reasonably suggested to one of ordinary skill in this art that any of the
embodiments illustrated by Noel FIGs. 2-4 or any other embodiment can be modified by
following other teachings or inferences found in this reference so as to arrive at a laminate
comprising at least a multilayer gas-impermeable film which must be able to delaminate into a
gas-impermeable portion and a gas-permeable portion, bond at the gas-permeable portion to a
gas-permeable film such that the two films remain bonded when subjected to a force that
delaminates the first film as required by each of appealed claims 1 and 32 as we have interpreted
these claims above.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007