Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200
1 C) The Rejection of Claims 42, 44, and 47 under 35 U.S.C.
2 § 103(a)
3 Claims 42, 44, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
4 as being unpatentable over De Keyser in view of at least one of
5 Marten, Tesch, and Waddill, further in view of Davis.
6 Claim 42 reads as follows:
7 The method of claim 27 wherein at least one of the first
8 substrate or the second substrate is a polymeric film comprised of
9 a thermoplastic selected from the group consisting of polyethylene
10 terephthalate, polyethylene, polypropylene, and polyvinylidene
11 chloride.
12 The examiner has found that Davis discloses the lamination of
13 films recited in claims 42, 44, and 47. The examiner then
14 concludes that it would have been obvious to use these films in De
15 Keyser’s process. (Office Action, October 31, 2003, page 7).
16 The appellant urges that Davis cannot be combined with De
17 Keyser because Davis contemplates the use of solvents. (Appeal
18 Brief, page 17). This argument is unpersuasive.
19 De Keyser expressly states that the films are preferably
20 plastics materials (column 1, line 14) and can be used in
21 packaging. Davis notes that flexible film laminates are currently
22 used in the packaging industry and such laminates are said to be
23 “very often” formed from “polyethylene terephthalate.” (column 1,
19
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007