Appeal 2006-0828
Application 10/252,175
a film.” Appellants then go on to mistakenly state that our Decision
“appears to hinge on the alleged failure of claim 1 to recite a ‘film’ (see
Decision at Page 4)” (Request 2, first para.).
At the outset, our Decision affirming the Examiner’s rejection under
§ 103 did not hinge on our overlooking of the recitation of “film” in claim 1.
As clearly stated in our opinion, “we agree with the examiner that
Kobylivker evidences the obviousness of manufacturing an article by joining
first and second primary components formed from first and second extruded
streams of polymeric material” (Decision 4, second para.). Also, our
statement regarding Appellants’ argument not being germane with the
claimed subject matter refers to the fact that, although claim 1 recites that
“the second molten stream comprises a film,” there is no express
requirement that the second primary component that is formed from the
second molten stream is in the form of a film when it is joined to the first
primary component to form the composite web. In addition, it is not clear
on this record that there is, in fact, a patentable distinction between a film
and a polymeric sheet.
Furthermore, as stated at page 5 of our Decision, “the alternative
embodiment depicted in figure 8 of Allen utilizes a back film sheet.”
Moreover, while Appellants conclude that Allen weighed the pros and cons
of forming the bottom film in situ, but selected the use of a separate
dispensing roll, we are not persuaded that such a selection is evidence of the
nonobviousness of selecting in situ formation as an alternative.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013