Appeal 2007-1004
Application 09/842,248
At the outset, we note that Appellants argue the rejected claims as a
group rather than separately. Thus, we select claim 1 as the representative
claim on which we shall decide this appeal.
The Examiner has found that Spain discloses a multilayer laminate
including acrylic in one layer and backing sheet and substrate layers, the
latter layers being formable from a variety of resins or plastic materials,
including thermoplastic polyolefin (Answer 3-4).1 The Examiner has found
that Saeki discloses a resinous composition including propylene resins and
fillers useful in forming automobile body parts, including bumpers (Answer
4-5). The Examiner essentially asserts that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ the
resin composition of Saeki as the resinous material used in forming the
backing sheet layer and/or a substrate layer of the laminate product of Spain
for improved impact strength and/or surface quality of the product and in so
doing arrive at a product embraced by representative claim 1 (Answer 5).
Appellants do not dispute that Spain discloses a laminate film product
useful in forming automobile body parts, wherein one or more layers thereof
comprises acrylate, which layer(s) corresponds to resin layer (A) of
representative claim 1 (See the Brief in its entirety and Spain at col. 11, l. 11
– col. 12, l. 37 and col. 14, ll. 14-56).2 Moreover, Appellants do not dispute
that Spain discloses the use of a backing and a substrate layer which are
1 Our references to the Answer herein are to the Examiner’s Answer mailed
September 29, 2006.
2 Our references to the Brief and Reply Brief herein are to the Substitute
Appeal Brief filed on November 17, 2005 and the Reply Brief filed on
November 28, 2006.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013