Appeal 2006-2900
Application 10/683,531
polymer, a siloxane of the recited viscosity and an antiblock agent. The film
has the specified coefficient of friction and average oxygen scavenging rate.
Appealed claims 1-6, 9-16, and 18-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Blinka in view of Peiffer, Hauenstein and
Mehta.
Appellants do not present an argument that is reasonably specific to
any particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, all of the appealed claims
stand or fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of Section 103 in view of the applied prior
art. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection for essentially
those reasons expressed in the Answer.
There is no dispute that Blinka, like Appellants, discloses a multilayer
film having first and second polymeric outer layers and an internal layer
comprising an oxygen scavenger, wherein the outer polymeric layer
comprises an antiblocking agent and a lubricant. As recognized by the
Examiner, Blinka does not teach the presently claimed siloxane as the
lubricant. However, Peiffer teaches a multilayer film wherein the polymeric
outer layer contains an antiblocking agent and a siloxane material. While
Peiffer does not disclose the claimed viscosity for the siloxane material, we
agree with the Examiner that Hauenstein and Mehta evidence the
obviousness of selecting a siloxane material having a viscosity within the
claimed range for the outer polymeric layer of a multilayer film. Hauenstein
teaches that siloxane materials having a viscosity of 2.5 x 107 cps improve
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007