Appeal 2007-2967
Application 10/274,827
only disclosed difference in properties is pigmentation” (Appeal Br. 7), and
“[t]he layers of the multi-layer films of Flieger are the same composition,
and [therefore] have the same melting point” (id.).
In this respect, we find that Flieger’s only example of a multi-layer
container (Example 2) comprises a film with a black inner layer for ultra-
violet light protection, a white middle layer for appearance, and a clear outer
layer for printability and tackiness, all made from the same copolymer
described in Example 1, “[a]n ionomer copolymer (80% ethylene/20%
methacrylic acid neutralized 35% with sodium ions . . . ) . . . [which] melts
at 85° and has a . . . stiffness . . . of 517 MPa” (Flieger, col. 3, ll. 1-5 and col.
3, l. 19 to col. 4, l. 8).
Therefore, we agree with Appellants that Flieger does not describe or
suggest a multi-layer thermoplastic film with at least two layers which have
different melting points, as required by the claims. Moreover, given our
interpretation of Bozich’s teachings, discussed above, we agree with
Appellants that “[t]he disclosure of Bozich fails to cure the defect of
Flieger” (Appeal Br. 7).
We find that the Examiner has not established a prima that the
claimed invention would have been obvious over the combined disclosures
of Flieger and Bozich. The rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
Obviousness
Claims 16-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Flieger in view of Bozich and Kik.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013