Appeal 2006-2335
Application 09/851,460
With regard to the rejection of claim 5, Appellants merely argue that
Rosen and Blemburg do not make up for the deficiencies of Farrell and
Miyazaki (Br. 15, 20). Therefore we adopt our comments from above, as
well as the Examiner’s findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect
to Rosen and Blemburg (Answer 5-6).
Based on the totality of the record, including due consideration of
Appellants’ arguments and evidence, we determine that the preponderance
of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of obviousness within the meaning
of § 103(a). Therefore we affirm all rejections on appeal based on Farrell in
view of Miyazaki, alone or in view of Rosen or Blemburg.
B. The Rejection Based on Bochow in view of Hattori
The Examiner finds that Bochow discloses a multilayer,
thermoformable composite film comprising a surface layer, an optional
adhesive layer, a gas barrier layer, a second optional adhesive layer, and a
heat sealable layer, where each layer may comprise materials within the
scope of the claimed materials (Answer 6). The Examiner further finds that
Bochow teaches the thicknesses of the individual layers, and these values
would produce thickness ratios which overlap the claimed thickness ratio
(Answer 6-7). The Examiner recognizes that, although Bochow teaches use
of a filler, the reference is silent on the amount of filler added to the
polypropylene film (Answer 7). Therefore the Examiner applies Hattori for
its teaching of a thermoformable laminate with a filled polypropylene layer
with advantageous properties when the filler is employed in amounts of from
5 to 60 parts by weight (pbw) (id.). From these findings, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art
at the time of the invention to use from 5 to 60 pbw of filler in the filled
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007