Appeal No. 2005-0279
Application No. 10/036,708
should be used in an effective amount to prevent delamination”
(column 2, lines 35-36; emphasis added) and that his “adhesive
should not be an excessive amount that retards the movement of
the grid under stress such as puncture” (column 2, lines 37-39;
emphasis added). In our view, these teachings undermine the
appellants’ position and reinforce the examiner’s. It follows
that this argument likewise is unpersuasive.
On pages 4 and 5 of the brief, the appellants contend that
their tie layer and extrusion-lamination process result in
different properties and thus a different product than the
adhesive layer containing product of Wynne. As support for this
contention, the appellants refer to the data in Table 1 on page
5 of the brief.3 Pursuant to the appellants’ interpretation of
this data, “[a] shrink wrap made in accordance with the claimed
invention has a 3" Load @ Yield that is almost twice that of a
shrink wrap made using an adhesive layer such as disclosed in
Wynne” (brief, pages 4-5). As fully explained by the examiner in
3
3The brief inappropriately fails to identify the source of this Table
1 data. Our independent study of the application record indicates
that the data has been obtained from Table 5 on page 13 of the
appellants’ specification and from Table 2 in column 4 of the Wynne
patent.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007