Appeal 2007-2967
Application 10/274,827
The test of obviousness is whether the teachings of the prior art, taken
as a whole, would have made obvious the claimed invention. In re Gorman,
933 F.2d 982, 986, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In the present case, Flieger describes the preparation of tubular
packaging for a melt processable product with a black inner layer for ultra
violet light protection, a white middle layer for appearance, and a clear outer
layer for printability. (Flieger, Col. 2, ll. 1-5.) Flieger describes packaging
for a melt processable product in the form of multi-layer cylindrical tubular
bags. (Flieger, col. 4, ll. 1-8.) As discussed herein, Flieger fails to disclose
a multilayer film made of materials having different melting points. We
similarly have found that Bozich fails to described multilayer film having
differing melting points. Kik describes a process for packaging hot melt
adhesives in a single tubular film wherein the hot melt adhesive is
introduced into the tubular film at a temperature of around 160º (Kik, col. 3,
ll. 20-24.)
We do not find that Kik makes up for the deficiencies of Flieger and
Bozich and their failure to teach a multilayer film comprised of film layers
with differing melting points. In view of the above, we reverse the
obviousness rejection.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-2 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Bozich is reversed. The rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Flieger in view of Bozich is
reversed. The rejection of claims 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Flieger in view of Bozich and Kik is reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013