Appeal No. 2004-2292
Application No. 09/747,537
multilayered film would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art.
Appellants argue that the subject matter of claim 12 is patentable
for the reasons discussed regarding the rejection over Schloegl and Keller.
(Brief, p. 9). Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because Appellants
have not addressed the motivation presented by the Examiner for
combining the cited references. Thus, for the reasons presented by the
Examiner we affirm the rejection of claim 12.
The Examiner rejected claims l-7, 9, 10, 13-28, 30, 33, 35, 37, and 38
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over the combined teachings of Peiffer and
Blemberg. We affirm. We select claim 1 as representative.
According to the Examiner, Peiffer teaches multilayer polypropylene
based films. (Answer, pp. 9-10). Peiffer discloses a multilayer polymeric film
comprising at least one skin layer. The skin layers preferably comprise
ethylene-propylene-butylene terpolymer or a mixture of this terpolymer with
one or more copolymers comprising ethylene and propylene or ethylene
and butylene or propylene and butylene units. (Col. 4, ll. 24-28). The core
(base) layer preferably comprises polymers of polypropylene. (Col. 3, ll. 18-
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007