Appeal 2006-2335
Application 09/851,460
and outer layers (Answer 4). The Examiner further finds that Farrell teaches
various adhesives to bond the layers together, the thickness of the outer
layer, the use of 5 to 80% of filler in the outer layer, and that the laminate
may be thermoformed (id.). The Examiner also finds that Farrell teaches
that the thickness of each layer is not critical but fails to teach the claimed
filled layer: unfilled layers thickness ratio (id.).
The Examiner applies Miyazaki for the teaching of the beneficial
thickness ratio of the filled polyolefin resin: unfilled layers in a
thermoformed laminate in order to assure that the laminate maintains the
appearance of paper, as well as the touch and feel of paper (Answer 4-5).
From these findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time the invention was made
to vary the thickness ratio of the filled layer to the unfilled layers in order to
obtain the appearance, touch and feel characteristics of paper (Answer 5).
Appellants argue that neither Farrell nor Miyazaki disclose a
multilayer barrier film comprising a sealing layer which forms a surface
layer (Br. 12, 14). As correctly stated by the Examiner (Answer 11),
Appellants’ argument is not well taken since Farrell teaches a surface layer
of HDPE, which is the same class of material disclosed by Appellants as
their “sealing layer” (Specification 4).
Appellants argue that Farrell “teaches away” from the claimed
thickness ratio since this reference teaches that the thickness of each layer is
not critical, and exemplifies a maximum thickness ratio of 1:1 (Br. 12). This
argument is not persuasive. A reference “teaches away” when it suggests
that the developments flowing from its disclosures are unlikely to produce
the objective of the Appellants’ invention. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007