Appeal No. 2006-0466
Application No. 10/175,787
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the
examiner and the appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review has led us to conclude that the
examiner’s § 103(a) rejections are well founded. Accordingly, we
affirm the examiner’s § 103(a) rejections for essentially the
factual findings in the Answer. We add the following for
emphasis and completeness.
The examiner correctly finds that Stzelewicz teaches an
envelope having front and rear walls each comprising (1) a tear
resistant outer layer 10 made of TYVEKk® (a synthetic, fibrous,
non-woven thermoplastic sheet) or other thermoplastic flexible
sheet material corresponding substantially to the outer layer of
the claimed outer film web, (2) a middle layer 14 made of
polyolefin film, for example, linear low density polyethylene
film corresponding to the inner layer of the claimed outer film2
web and (3) an inner layer 12 made of suitable cushioning
material, for example, polyolefin foam or polyolefin flim
According page 6 of the specification, “‘[e]thylene2
homopolymer or copolymer’ herein refers to ethylene homopolymer
such as low density polyethylene...”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007