Appeal 2007-2967
Application 10/274,827
Thus, the seams of Bozich’s packaged adhesive are the only place
where the thermoplastic film can be said to be multi-layered, but the seams
lie between the individually packaged blocks of adhesive. Therefore, we
agree with Appellants that “[t]he hot melt adhesive of Bozich is not encased
in a multilayer film, but rather sandwiched between two films” (Appeal Br.
5), each of which has only a single layer. Stated another way, Bozich’s hot-
melt adhesive is encased in a single-layer film, even though the single layer
on the top of the package may differ from the single layer on the bottom.
We find that the Bozich does not anticipate the claimed invention.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as anticipated
by Bozich is reversed.
Obviousness
Claims 1-5 and 7-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
anticipated by Flieger in view of Bozich. According to the Examiner,
Flieger discloses a packaged hot melt composition comprising a
hot melt polymeric composition encased in a multilayer
thermoplastic film. Bozich et al. disclose a packaged hot melt
adhesive comprising a hot melt adhesive encased in a
multilayer thermoplastic film, the layers being different
materials and having different melting points, and being of
different thicknesses. To modify the packaged hot melt
composition of Flieger employing the differing materials and
thicknesses of Bozich et al. would have been obvious as a
matter of choice, the prior art already suggesting employing
differing materials and layers of differing thicknesses as a
matter of course.
(Answer 5-6.)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013