Appeal 2007-1001
Application 10/602,197
Appellants have not separately argued any particular claim on appeal.
Accordingly, all of the appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 21.
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 § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
The sole argument advanced by Appellants is that Bothe discloses a
syndiotactic propylene polymer having a high melt flow index, not the
presently claimed melt flow index of less than 2 grams/10 minutes. The
Examiner appreciates that Bothe discloses a propylene surface layer having
a melt flow index greater than the claimed value However, the Examiner
cites Peet as evidence that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to select a polypropylene surface layer having a melt flow
index within the claimed range. Peet specifically discloses a biaxially
oriented multi-layer film having a surface layer of syndiotactic
polypropylene having a melt flow index of less than 2 grams/10 minutes.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for
one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a surface layer of syndiotactic
polypropylene having a melt flow index within the claimed range in forming
a multi-layer film of the type disclosed by Bothe.
Appellants respond that one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify
the melt flow index of Bothe's surface layer because "it is well known in the
art that as the MFI of a polymer decreases, the optical properties, such as
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013