Appeal No. 2006-0715
Application No. 09/757,175
The examiner finds that Park discloses an opaque, biaxially oriented multilayer
film comprising a thermoplastic polymer voided core layer and at least one void-free
thermoplastic skin layer affixed to the surface of the core layer (Answer, page 3). The
examiner also finds that Park teaches that by adding a light absorbent colored pigment
to the non-expanded (void-free) skin, the opacity is increased, and these pigment
particles may be added to the core only, to the skins only, or any combination (id.).
The examiner recognizes that Park lacks a teaching that the multilayered opaque
film is “substantially void-free” in each layer, as required by claim 1 on appeal (id.).
Therefore the examiner cites Wilkie, directed to an oriented multilayer film having a
white-opaque layer, with the teaching that traditional opaque films have been produced
using a cavitated (voided) core in order to achieve opacity but the voided core weakens
the core layer (id.). The examiner also finds that Wilkie teaches oriented non-cavitated
films of ethylene-propylene random copolymer with titanium dioxide dispersed therein
are advantageous (id.). From these findings, the examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time of appellants’ invention “to
substitute Park’s voided opaque core layer with a layer of oriented, titanium dioxide
opacified, substantially void-free polymer of a lower melting temperature” as taught by
Wilkie, motivated by a desire to obtain an opaque multilayer film with improved
mechanical strength (Answer, page 4).
We cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection. As correctly argued by appellants’
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007