Appeal 2006-2900
Application 10/683,531
does not teach the inclusion of an amide wax in combination with the
inorganic antiblocking agent. Also, as pointed out by the Examiner, Peiffer
teaches that polymeric films containing an antiblocking agent and the amide
wax discussed by Appellants have deficient blocking behavior at elevated
temperature and are unsatisfactory with respect to their running and heat-
sealing properties and block values at elevated temperatures. As a result, we
find that the applied prior art would have properly motivated one of ordinary
skill in the art, as well as Appellants, to eschew the use of an amide wax in
the outer polymeric layer of a multi-layer film. While Appellants submit
that none of Peiffer, Hauenstein and Mehta appears to disclose an oxygen
scavenger, the use of an oxygen scavenger in an internal layer of a multi-
layer film is taught by Blinka.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results. Although
Appellants invite our attention to specification examples and comparative
examples as evidence of the benefit of the claimed combination, it is not
within the province of this Board to analyze specification data and ferret out
results that are favorable to Appellants. Manifestly, the burden of analyzing
and explaining data to support an argument of unexpected results rests on
the party asserting it. In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080, 173 USPQ 14, 16
(C.C.P.A. 1972).
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner's decision
rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007