Appeal 2006-0153
Application 10/082,635
Lewicki et al [would have] suggested at column 2, lines 28-
37… that those skilled in the art would have readily appreciated
that nylon or polyester films would have been useful in the
manufacture of dunnage by virtue of the fact that the same was
air impervious.
Specifically, Lewicki teaches at column 2, lines 28-37 that:
The first embodiment of the invention is illustrated in
simplified form in FIGS. 1 to 6 of the drawings. The
cushioning unit 10 is preferably formed of four laminations.
The uppermost sheet 1 is a thermoplastic polymeric film such
as polyethelene [sic. polyethylene], polypropylene, polyesters,
nylon, polyvinyl chloride, polyvinylidene, polyurethane, etc.,
having a thickness which may range from 0.3 mil to 5 mil. or
more, depending upon the intended use of the material which,
of course, is gas impervious as well as abrasion and wear
resistant. [Emphasis added.]
Lewicki not only describes that, inter alia, gas impervious polyester and
nylon materials are interchangeable in the bubble wrap art, but also
impliedly teaches that the selection of appropriate thermoplastic polymeric
films, such as polyesters and nylon, based on intended uses is well within
the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. Compare, e.g., In re Boesch,
617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980) (“[D]iscovery of an
optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily
within the skill of the art.”) The Examiner has also found, and the
Appellants have not disputed, that:
[I]t was known in the art of polyester resins [as evidenced by
any one of Kamo, Deiringer and Clements] to included [sic,
include] recycled polyester (and/or post consumed polyester) in
the virgin polyester resin used in an extrusion operation to form
a film of the same (where in some instances[,] the film was
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013