Appeal 2007-3149
Application 10/318,460
Moreover, the artisan would have considered copolymer from a
continuous tubular reactor as having a reasonable expectation of successfully
forming Rebholz's laminate in view of the advantageous properties
associated with this type of copolymer including resistance to delamination
(e.g., White, col. 1, ll. 35-38). Under these circumstances, the Examiner
reasonably concluded that it would have been obvious for an artisan to use
copolymer from a continuous tubular reactor in forming the laminate of
Rebholz since the proposed combination of known elements according to
known methods yields no more than predictable results. See KSR Int'l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007).
In light of the foregoing, we are unconvinced by the Appellants'
nonobviousness arguments concerning appealed claim 1. The arguments
regarding claims 2-6 (Br. 11-12) also are unpersuasive for the reasons well
stated by the Examiner (Answer 5-8 and 19-22). We hereby sustain,
therefore, the Examiner's § 103 of claims 1-6 as being unpatentable over
Rebholz in view of White or Deex or Pfleger and further in view of
Ullmann's.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(vi).
AFFIRMED
cam
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013