Appeal No. 2003-1906
Application No. 09/458,623
Appellants also take issue with the examiner’s finding that
the lid of Takanashi is unoriented. Appellants cite examples at
column 5, lines 41-59 wherein an intermediate layer is described
as two layers of biaxially drawn polypropylene. However, we
concur with the examiner’s reasoning that since Takanashi
describes the polypropylene layers as oriented, and provides no
such description for the polyamide and ethylene vinyl alcohol
copolymer, it is reasonable to conclude that the polyamide and
ethylene vinyl alcohol of Takanashi are unoriented.
We also concur with the examiner that the unsealed corner of
Takanashi’s lid qualifies as “a tab”, particularly in view of
appellants’ failure to define what qualifies as a tab. Moreover,
we find that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill
in the art to provide a tab on the lid of Takanashi.
As for appellants’ contention that it cannot be assumed that
the oxygen barrier properties for the lids of Takanashi and
appellants are equivalent because they are different in
composition and structure, appellants have not provided any
argument or evidence which demonstrates a difference in
composition and structure.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007