Appeal No. 2006-0466
Application No. 10/175,787
laminate having a plurality of air-filed cavities between layers
of film corresponding to the claimed inner ply. See column 2,
lines 28-44. Indeed, the appellants acknowledge that Stzelewicz
teaches an envelope corresponding to the claimed envelope, except
for the outer layer polymer (e.g., propylene polymer) recited in
claim 1. See the Brief, pages 10-12.
The appellants’ sole argument is that the applied prior art
references, especially Stzelewicz and Jones, would not have
suggested employing the claimed polymer, e.g., propylene polymer,
as at least part of an outer layer of the envelope taught by
Stzelewicz. See the Brief, pages 10-12. We do not agree.
As indicated supra, Stzelewicz teaches that its outer layer
10 may be made of TYVEKk® (a synthetic, fibrous, non-woven
thermoplastic sheet) or other thermoplastic flexible sheet. See
also column 1, lines 35-41 and column 2, lines 37-41. Although
Strzelewicz does not specifically mention the claimed polymeric
material, e.g., propylene polymer, it does teach employing
various synthetic, fibrous, non-woven thermoplastic sheet or
other thermoplastic flexible sheet, including TYVEK® as its outer
layer 10. Moreover, Jones not only teaches that TYVEK® is
spundbound polyolefin inclusive of the claimed propylene polymer,
but also in reference to a nonwoven flexible fibrous cover sheet
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007