Appeal No. 2004-1333
Application 09/969,190
avoid water vapor and gas permeability particularly reliably if a
layer of the cladding is formed by a metal layer produced by
sputtering or by use of a plastic/metal composite film. For these
reasons, we find appellants’ argument regarding the
“thermoplastic” language of claims 1, 20 and 21 on appeal to be
unpersuasive.
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 20 and 21 on appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Wynne. Per appellants’ grouping
of claims set forth on page 7 of the brief, it follows that
claims 2 through 19 will fall with claim 1, and that the
examiner’s various rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of those
claims will also be sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007