Appeal 2007-3149
Application 10/318,460
continuous tubular reactor (Answer 5).1 The Examiner also finds that each
of White, Deex and Pfleger teaches that an ethylene/methyl acrylate
copolymer obtained from a continuous tubular reactor possesses
advantageous properties (Answer 6) and concludes that it would have been
obvious for an artisan to form Rebholz's laminate using the copolymer from
a continuous tubular reactor in order to obtain these advantageous properties
(Answer 7). The Examiner relies on Ullmann's to support an obviousness
conclusion with respect to claims 2 and 6 (Answer 7-8).
Appellants argue that the applied prior art contains no teaching or
suggestion of using the copolymer from a continuous tubular reactor in
forming Rebholz's polyester and copolymer laminate (Appeal Br. 10; Reply
Br. 4-6).
For the reasons fully and well detailed in the Answer, we will sustain
the Examiner's rejection of all appealed claims. We add the following
comments for emphasis.
We fully share the Examiner's finding that Rebholz's discloses the
above discussed laminate but is silent as to whether the ethylene/methyl
acrylate copolymer is obtained from a batch autoclave or a continuous
tubular reactor (col. 2, ll. 35-50). The Appellants' apparent view to the
contrary (Reply Br. 5-6) is without perceptible merit. Because Rebholz does
not expressly identify a copolymer source, an artisan would have considered
forming patentee's laminate using any type of copolymer having a
reasonable expectation of success.
1 The copolymer is homogeneous in nature when obtained from a batch
autoclave and heterogeneous in nature when obtained from a continuous
tubular reactor as explained by Appellants (e.g., Br. 3) and recognized by the
prior art (e.g., White, col. 2, ll. 10-23).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013