Appeal No. 2004-2292
Application No. 09/747,537
The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over the
combined teachings of Peiffer, Keller and Arita. We affirm.
As stated above, the Examiner relies on the Arita reference to
establish that employing low density polyethylene in the skin layer of a
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 Peiffer and Keller.
(Brief, p. 11). 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.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Answer, based
on the totality of the record, we determine that the preponderance of
evidence weighs in favor of obviousness, giving due weight to Appellants
arguments in the briefs and evidence. Accordingly, the Examiner’s
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed.
CONCLUSION
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007