Appeal 2007-2853
Application 10/255,922
micrometers” (Br. 3). Appellants further argue that since Ashcraft produces
large voids and Kent discloses that large voids are undesirable, it would not
have been obvious to combine Kent’s and Ashcraft’s disclosures (Br. 4).
Appellants argue that the Examiner has provided no evidence that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been directed to optimize the surface
roughness, void size, and aspect ratio of a voided layer to obtain a high
FLOP value as taught in the present invention (Br. 4). Appellants argue that
the Examiner’s proposed combination of Ashcraft’s various parameters for a
voided sheet with Kent’s voided sheet is based on impermissible hindsight
(Br. 5). Appellants argue that Kent’s disclosure to use a compatibilizer to
form smaller areas of polyolefin phase polymer teaches away from larger
voids and higher FLOP values (Br. 5). Appellants further argue that the
Examiner has not provided any support for the contention that the cited
references teach that “a greater length to height ratio enhances flop value,”
or that such references would motivate the artisan to provide a voided film
with the required FLOP value (Br. 6).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and find them
unpersuasive for the reasons below.
Regarding Appellants’ arguments directed to the void size and void
aspect ratio, we note that Appellants concede that Ashcraft’s Figure 1
discloses “at least some relatively high aspect ratio voids” (Br. 3).
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments are not directed to whether the claimed
void sizes and aspect ratios are disclosed by Ashcraft; rather, Appellants’
arguments are directed to the motivation for combining Ashcraft’s void sizes
with Kent’s pearlescent film.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013