Appeal No. 2004-2292
Application 09/747,537
a whole, it would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in this art as a matter of fact
“multi-layer film structures . . . that have adjacent layers made from dissimilar polymeric
materials” wherein some of the olefin polymer in the polyolefin layer is included in the
dissimilar layer, and that some of the polymer in the dissimilar layer is included in the
polyolefin layer (brief, pages 4-5 and 10).8 I find that Blemberg summarizes the disclosed
invention as “film layers which do not usually adhere well to each other can be made to do
so by adding to each of the separate layers a selected amount of at least one of the
components of the other layer” (col. 1, ll. 47-51), and illustrates the thus disclosed
invention with, among others, two layer and three layer films, the latter films having a
layer termed “an adhesive or tie” layer, in which the polymers of two adjacent layers do
not adhere well (col. 3, l. 3, to col. 8, l. 49).
Accordingly, I am of the opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
considered the passage at col. 2, l. 12, to col. 3, l. 2, in this context and would not have
read this passage as encompassing films in which all layers comprise polyolefin films
merely on the basis of the following sentence:
While the problem overcome by this invention concerns improving the
adhesion of polyolefins, vinylidene chloride copolymers , polyesters,
polyamides and/or polycarbonates, as generically described above, X and Y
can be any material suitable for making film layers therefrom. [Col. 2, ll.
33-37.]
Indeed, in my view, the phrase “X and Y can be any material suitable for making film
layers therefrom” reads on “dissimilar polymeric materials” other than the specifically
8 It is well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well
as the inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been expected
to draw therefrom, see In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782-
83 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968);
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 458-59, 105 USPQ 233, 237 (CCPA 1955), presuming skill
on the part of this person. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed.
Cir. 1985).
27
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007