Appeal No. 2006-1061
Application No. 09/505,713
taught by Breitler et al based on the desired film properties for a particular
end use.” (Answer, p. 5). The Examiner determined that through routine
experimentation it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art
to determine the optimum thickness of the individual layers because layer
thickness is a result-effective variable affecting the barrier, mechanical,
adhesion and sealing properties of the resulting composite. (Answer, p. 5).
Further, the Examiner determined, citing the Ullmann reference, that
utilization of an appropriate laminating method, such as extrusion laminating,
lamination coating, coextrusion or laminating via adhesives would have
been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. (Answer, p. 5).
The major point of disagreement between Appellants and the
Examiner is the description of the subject matter of Breitler in column 4.
Appellants argue that:
The Examiner has incorrectly contended that column 4 of
Breitler et al. discloses appellants' second functional layer (c).
The disclosure in column 4 of Breitler et at., when taken in
context with the entire disclosure of such patent, refers to a
sealable layer on one or both sides of its composite material (and
not to a sealable layer on both sides of a polyamide layer of said
composite material). Appellants have presented below an
analysis of column 4 and its meaning in the context of the whole
disclosure of Breitler et al. and the wording in such column.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007