Appeal 2007-2851
Application 10/308,702
The Examiner has entered the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b):
(a) claims 1-11, 13, 15, 16, 18-20, 22-24, 30-33, and 35 over Barkis;
(b) claims 1-3, 8-11, 13, 14, 17, and 35 over Idea;
(c) claims 30-34 and 36 over Breidt.
Also, claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Barkis in view of Wilhoit, and claims 18, 22, and 25 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Idea in view of
Liu.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability, as well as the Declaration and Specification evidence relied
upon in support thereof. However, we find that the Examiner’s rejections
are in accord with current patent jurisprudence and supported by the prior art
evidence relied upon. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add
the following primarily for emphasis.
We consider first the Examiner’s rejections under § 102 over Barkis
and Idea. Appellants’ arguments against these rejections are essentially the
same, namely, that there is a structural distinction between coextruded
polymer layers and polymer layers that are not coextruded, e.g., wherein one
layer is extruded on another already formed layer. There is no dispute that
both Barkis and Idea describe biaxially oriented film structures comprising a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013