Appeal No. 2004-2292
Application No. 09/747,537
ordinary skill in the art to add a polyolefin modifier to the core layer of
Peiffer in order to reduce the crystallinity of the core layer. (Answer, p. 14).
The resulting multilayered film would also have the property of improved
tear resistance as disclosed by Keller. (Col. 5).
Appellants rely on the arguments presented in response to the
rejection over the combined teachings of Schloegl and Keller. (Brief, p.
11). In particular, Appellants argue that one skilled in the art would not
have been motivated to look to the teachings of Keller to modify Peiffer
because of the fundamentally different techniques used to produce the
films of Peiffer and Keller.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. As stated above, Peiffer
discloses that the core layer also preferably comprises an ethylene-
propylene copolymer. This additional copolymer would function the same
as the polymeric modifier required by the present invention. Thus, contrary
to Appellants’ position, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
reasonably expected that a modifier, i.e., an additional olefin copolymer
could have been incorporated into the core layer of Peiffer’s multilayered
film. We additionally rely on our discussion presented when discussing the
rejection over the combined teachings of Schloegl and Keller above.
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007