Appeal 2006-2335
Application 09/851,460
The following rejections are on review in this appeal:
(1) claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Farrell in view of Miyazaki
(Answer 4);2
(2) claim 5 stands rejected under § 103(a) over Farrell in view of
Miyazaki and either Rosen (Answer 5) or Blemburg (id.);
(3) claims 1, 2, 4, 6-11, 13, 14, 18, and 19 stand rejected under
§ 103(a) over Bochow in view of Hattori (Answer 6).3
Based on the totality of the record, we AFFIRM all grounds of
rejection under review in this appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the
Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejections Based on Farrell and Miyazaki
The Examiner finds that Farrell discloses a plastic laminate sheet that
comprises an outer layer of filled plastic, an inner layer of high density
polyethylene (HDPE) that corresponds to the claimed “sealing layer,” and an
ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH) barrier layer interposed between the inner
2 The Examiner inadvertently omits claims 18 and 19 from the statement of
the rejection on page 4 of the Answer. However, we hold this error harmless
since the Examiner has stated the correct claims in the rejection on page 3 of
the Answer, as well as page 2 of the Final Office Action dated Feb. 13,
2004, and Appellants have recognized the claims in this rejection (Br. 4,
Ground A).
3 The Examiner also inadvertently omits claims 18 and 19 from this
statement of the rejection on page 6 of the Answer. However, we hold this
error harmless for the same reasons as noted in footnote 2. We also note that
all rejections based on Schirmer (US 5,011,735) in the Final Office Action
dated Feb. 13, 2004, have been withdrawn by the Examiner (Answer 2-3, ¶
(6); Reply Br. 2).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007