Appeal No. 2006-1673 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/913,725
Claims 1, 2, and 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Takayama in view of Yano (JP 11-
158305).
We refer to the brief and reply briefs and to the answers
for a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellants and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
Having considered the record of this application, including
the arguments advanced by both the examiner and appellants in
support of their respective positions, we find ourselves in
agreement with appellants’ position in that the examiner has not
met the burden to show, prima facie, that the applied prior art
renders the subject mater of the rejected claims obvious within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we reverse the
rejection advanced by the examiner. Our reasoning follows.
Like appellants, Yano is directed to a porous film made from
a composition including a resin comprising a low density
polyethylene and a branched low density polyethylene together
with inorganic filler according to appellants and the examiner.2
2 The Thomas translation of Yano is a machine-assisted translation and does not
appear to be a verified translation, not withstanding the examiner’s statement at page 3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007