Appeal No. 2003-0358
Application 08/982,958
In order to arrive at the laminate structure required by the appealed claims based on the
pertinent illustrated embodiments of Noel, one of ordinary skill in this art would have to bond a
gas-permeable film to gas-permeable portion 30 of delaminatable film or web 26 of Noel FIG. 2;
interchange the top film 68 of the multilayer film laminate 66 of Noel FIG. 3 with a
delaminatable film such as film or web 26 of Noel FIG. 2; and bond a gas-permeable film to the
gas-permeable portion of delaminatable multilayer film 130 opposite bonded impermeable film
128 of multilayer web 126 of Noel FIG. 4. We note here that the examiner also takes the
position that Noel describes other unspecified embodiments but does not explain how this is so.
We cannot agree with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in this art would make such
modifications to disclosed and undisclosed embodiments on the sheer basis that Noel teaches
monolayer and multilayer films at col. 10, lines 3-5 (answer, pages 3 and 7), including multi-
layer gas-impermeable films at col. 10, lines 6+ (id., pages 7-8), for several reasons.
First, it seems to us that one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably inferred
from the objectives and specific embodiments of Noel that the delaminatable film is sealed to the
support member of product package at the permeable portion side, and the delaminatable film
can be bonded to an impermeable film in order to meet the objects of the invention. See, e.g.,
col. 3, lines 5-47; col. 4, lines 57-64; and Noel FIGs. 2 and 4, and supporting disclosure. Indeed,
it is apparent that when the delaminatable film is bonded to an impermeable film, whether the
delaminatable film is bonded to such film through an impermeable or permeable portion, the
impermeable film along with the portion of the delaminatable film to which it is bonded separate
from a permeable portion of the delaminatable film bonded to the support member upon
delamination (e.g., col. 6, lines 29-33; see also col. 6, line 56, to col. 7, line 15). Thus, there is
no express teaching to bond an additional permeable film to the delaminatable film, such that the
resulting laminate is bonded to the support member through the additional permeable film.
And, second, we fail to find that one of ordinary skill in this art would have found in the
disclosure at col. 9, line 67, to col. 10, line 35, any suggestion or inference to bond a permeable
film to the permeable portion of a delaminatable film which would remain with the product
package upon delamination because, as appellant points out (brief, page 16), a multi-layer film is
not a multi-film laminate as these terms are used in the appealed claims, and we find that one of
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007