Appeal No. 2006-1061
Application No. 09/505,713
Regarding claims 46, 52 and 53, Appellants argue that Breitler does not
disclose or suggest a polypropylene layer between the metal foil and the
polyamide layer. (Brief, pp. 37-40). This is essentially the same argument
presented in the discussion of claim 38. As stated above, Breitler is suggestive
of a composite material comprising a sealing layer on both sides of the
plastic (polyamide) layer. Breitler discloses the sealing layer can be formed
from polypropylene. (Column 4, lines 21-35). Thus, we affirm the rejection of
claims 46, 52 and 53.
After considering all the evidence, with due consideration to the
Appellants’ arguments and evidence, we determine that the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject
matter of claims 38-53, which has not been sufficiently rebutted by
Appellants.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 38-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as unpatentable
over Breitler is reversed. The rejection of claims 38-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a)
as unpatentable over Breitler and Ullmann is affirmed.
-13-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007