Ex Parte Tzou et al - Page 4


                Appeal No.  2007-1111                                                  Page 4                
                Application No.  10/126,804                                                                  
                      The examiner also finds that Wilcox teaches that metal flakes “may be                  
                provided in the injection moldable material for the purpose of acting as a                   
                reinforcing filler to the plastic.”  Answer, page 5.  In this regard, the examiner           
                finds that Akao teaches “that metal flake filler is almost as preferable as carbon           
                black in providing light shielding to a container.”  Id.                                     
                      Based on this evidence, the examiner finds (Answer, page 5), it would                  
                have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time           
                the invention was made to make the ‘653 container by injection molding as                    
                taught by Wilcox.  As Wilcox teaches that aluminum flake provides a reinforcing              
                property to the plastic, the examiner finds that it would have been prima facie              
                obvious at the time of appellants’ claimed invention to include “aluminum flake in           
                the injection molded material to provide a reinforced property to the plastic. . . .”        
                Id.   In addition, the examiner finds (id.) that Wilcox teaches the use of a “material       
                with a light shield to prevent any light (i.e. in any wavelength) from getting to the        
                adhesive.”  As Akao teaches that the aluminum flake suggested by Wilcox has                  
                the additional property of shielding light transmission, a person of ordinary skill in       
                the art would have been further motivated to include aluminum flake in the plastic           
                to contribute to the light shielding properties of the plastic.  Id.                         
                                                                                      2                      
                      We find no error in the examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.                    
                      For their part, appellants assert that “‘653 does not teach that there is a            
                problem with light transmission or the rigidity of the containers.  As a result, there       
                is no reason to substitute the optional reinforcing metal flakes of Wilcox et al. for        
                                                                                                             
                2 We recognize the examiner’s reliance on Keller (Answer, page 5-6), to teach the inclusion of
                aluminum particulates to prepare packaging film with high opacity.  In our opinion, Keller is
                cumulative to the teachings of Akao and Wilcox.                                              




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013