Appeal No. 2006-1061
Application No. 09/505,713
essentially for the reasons presented by the Examiner and add the following
primarily for emphasis.
We note that Appellants’ representative in the Hearing on May 9, 2006,
indicated that the appeal as to the subject matter of claim 51 is withdrawn.
Thus, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 51.
We now turn to the rejection of the remaining claims.
The Examiner found that Breitler teaches a composite film containing a
metal foil, preferably aluminum, with plastic films on both sides thereof.
According to the Examiner, Breitler teaches the general layer structure as
instantly claimed with layer thickness within or comprising the instantly
claimed ranges. Breitler teaches utilizing optional adhesive, bonding and/or
primer layers to bond plastic layers to each other and/or to the metal foil.
The Examiner asserts that “[t]hough Breitler et al discloses all of the layers,
layer materials and layer thickness as instantly claimed, Breitler et al does not
specifically limit the invention to the specific composite film combination as
instantly claimed, however, it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize any of the
structures disclosed by Breitler et al selecting from the disclosed materials
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007