Appeal 2007-1001
Application 10/602,197
gloss, also deteriorate" (sentence bridging pages 4 and 5 of principal Br.).
Appellants maintain that "Bothe is aimed at increasing gloss and therefore
there is no motivation to modify the primary reference with a low MFI (low
gloss) polymer as taught by Peet" (page 5 of principal Br., first para.).
Appellants contend that there would have been no motivation to modify
Bothe in such a way to render it inoperable or to destroy its intended
function.
We, like the Examiner, are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. In
our view, while one of ordinary skill in the art might have reasonably
expected that the gloss would be reduced when a surface layer of lower melt
flow index is used, we concur with the Examiner that it would have been
prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to sacrifice the
property of high gloss when such property is not necessary. Also, while one
of ordinary skill in the art might have reasonably expected a reduction in
gloss when using a surface polymer of higher melt flow index, the Examiner
properly notes that Appellants have not established that "the specific MFI
range taught by Peet would substantially reduce the gloss to an unacceptable
level" (page 5 of Answer, third para.). Also, the Examiner points out that
while the Cabot reference cited by Appellants also suggests that other optical
properties, such as haze, may be adversely affected as the MFI is lowered,
Bothe indicates that the overall haze of the film is not adversely affected
when a polypropylene having a low MFI is used. Consequently, we are
satisfied that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
select a melt flow index for the surface layer that produces the particular
properties desired, such as gloss, in constructing a multilayer film within the
scope of the appealed claims. We observe that Appellants have not
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013