Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200
1 lines 39-45). Although Davis does describe water-borne laminating
2 adhesives, the underlying films are still taught to be appropriate
3 for the packaging art. One having ordinary skill in the art would
4 reasonably have expected Davis’ polyethylene terephthalate also to
5 be useful in the De Keyser process. We have not been directed to
6 evidence tenting to show that polyethylene terephthalate is not a
7 plastic film as described by De Keyser. Naked attorney argument
8 aside, there is no reason why the Davis films are not capable of
9 being laminated in De Keyser’s process.
10 We AFFIRM this rejection as it relates to claim 42.
11 Claim 44 reads as follows:
12 The method of claim 27 wherein both the first substrate and
13 the second substrate have a thickness of from about 10 to about
14 100 microns.
15 The appellant has again urged that Davis relates to solvents.
16 We have found this unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
17 However, the appellant also states that the “Davis reference does
18 not appear to discuss ‘thickness of from about 10 to about 100
19 microns.’” (Appeal Brief, page 18, lines 14-17). This statement
20 is incorrect at best and misleading at worst.
21 Even a cursory review of Davis reveals several examples of
22 films that are laminated, including 2 mil polyethylene (column 8,
23 line 12) 2 mil polyamide (column 9, line 2) and 0.5 mil polyester.
20
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007