Appeal No. 2003-1906
Application No. 09/458,623
polyamide homopolymer or a copolymer and an inner layer of an
ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer.
It is appellants’ contention that “while Takanashi may not
disclose particular lamination conditions, the joining of their
film layers is still limited to lamination and not coextrusion.”
(page 9 of principal brief, first paragraph). According to
appellants, “a multilayered film formed by lamination is
structurally different than a multilayer film formed by
coextrusion.” (page 10 of principal brief, second paragraph).
We agree with the examiner, however, that coextrusion is a form
of a lamination technique, i.e., layers may be laminated by
coextrusion, adhesive bonding, etc. Significantly, the examiner
has provided factual support that laminating can be accomplished
by coextrusion. In particular, the examiner cites U.S. Patent
Nos. 4,424,256, 4,405,667, 5,726,283 and 5,212,006. Appellants’
reply brief fails to offer any response to the examiner’s
citation of these U.S. Patents. Indeed, appellants’ own
specification belies their argument that coextrusion is not a
form of lamination. In relevant part, appellants’ specification
discloses the following:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007