Ex Parte Ramalingam

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 31, 2006

10267200 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte BALASUBRAMANIAM RAMALINGAM
__________

Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200
___________

ON BRIEF
___________

Before SCHAFER, TIERNEY, and MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL 31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final
rejection of claims 27-54. Claims 1-26 have been canceled.
(Appeal Brief, Nov. 22, 2005, pages 1-2). Consequently, only
claims 27-54 are before us on this appeal.
We affirm the rejections of record, and make several
additional references of record.

Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200

2
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The sole independent claim is as follows:
27. A method of preparing a flexible film laminate
comprising:
a) mixing an epoxy resin and a curative having at least one
active hydrogen contained in a functional group selected from the
group consisting of primary amino groups, secondary amino groups,
carboxyl groups and combinations thereof to form an adhesive
formulation, said epoxy resin and said curative having been
selected so as to maintain the viscosity of said adhesive
formulation for at least 20 minutes after mixing within the range
of 1,000 to 10,000 cps at 40°C and said adhesive formulation being
essentially free of solvent, water and isocyanate-functionalized
compounds;
b) applying the adhesive formulation to a surface of a first
substrate selected from the group consisting of metal foils and
polymeric films;
c) pressing said surface of said first substrate having the
adhesive formulation applied thereto against a surface of a second
substrate selected from the group consisting of metal foils and
polymeric films; and
d) curing the adhesive formulation.

Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200

3
The References 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
In rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the
examiner relies upon the following references:
De Keyser et al (De Keyser) 3,840,419 Oct. 08, 1974
Waddill (Waddill) 4,420,606 Dec. 13, 1983
Tesch et al. (Tesch) 4,607,069 Aug. 19, 1986
Marten et. al (Marten) 5,017,675 May 21, 1991
Davis (Davis) 5,037,700 Aug. 06, 1991
Dubois et al. (Dubois) 5,244,998 Sep. 14, 1993
The following new references are discussed in this decision.
Kigawa et al. (Kigawa) 5,319,062 Jun. 07, 1994

Epoxy Resins, Their Applications and Technology, “Adhesives,” pp.
222-225, Lee & Neville, McGraw Hill, 1957.

Resin/Hardener Combinations, Pro-Set Laminating Epoxy
Resin/Hardener Combinations, February 23, 2000.

“Preventing Asthma and Death from Diisocyanate Exposure,” National 19
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Publication 96-111
(1996).
20
21
22
23
24
25

Mark’s Standard handbook for Mechanical Engineers, Tenth Edition,
page 1-22

The Rejections26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
A) Claims 27-33, 35-41, 43, 45-46, and 48-54 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over De Keyser in
view of at least one of Marten, Tesch, and Waddill.
B) Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over De Keyser in view of at least one of Marten,
Tesch, and Waddill, further in view of Dubois.

Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200

4
1
2
3
C) Claims 42, 44, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over De Keyser in view of at least
one of Marten, Tesch, and Waddill, further in view of Davis.
The Invention4
5
6
7
8
The invention relates to flexible packaging laminates for
storing products. (Specification, page 1, lines 6-7). A
formulation is mixed having an epoxy resin and a curative with at
least one active hydrogen contained in a particular functional
group. (Id., page 3, lines 13-16). The invention is said to
provide a laminating adhesive free of solvent, water, and
isocyanate-functionalized compounds (
9
10
Id., page 3, lines 11-13). A
certain viscosity is maintained for a length of time to provide a
flexible adhesive when fully cured. (Id., page 3, lines 19-20).
(Appeal Brief, page 2, lines 4-11, see also claim 1).
11
12
13
14
A) The Rejection of Claims 27-33, 35-41, 43, 45-46, and 48-54 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
i). Claims 27-33, 35-41, 43, 45-46, and 48-54 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over De Keyser in
view of at least one of Marten, Tesch, and Waddill.
The examiner has found that De Keyser describes a method of
making a laminated material by coating a film with a solventless
adhesive bonding the adhesive coated film with another film
between two cylinders and curing the adhesive. The examiner has
Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
additionally found that De Keyser describes the exclusion of
water-based glues and resins dissolved in at least one volatile
organic adhesive. The examiner has further found that De Keyser
describes a two-component non-isocyanate reactive component
adhesive which react in situ to form a crosslinked adhesive
polymer. Finally, the examiner has found that De Keyser describes
a solventless adhesive having a low viscosity as a low viscosity
is necessary to apply the adhesive (Examiner’s Answer, May 20,
2005, pages 4-5).
Marten, on the other hand, is said to describe an epoxy
composition in which water and solvent are optional. The epoxy is
decribed as containing low viscosity bisphenol A resin and a
curing agent which includes active hydrogen atoms such as
polyamidoamine. The low viscosity is said to enable bulk mixing
without use of diluents. (Examiner’s Answer, page 6, last
paragraph).
The examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to use the claimed active hydrogen curing agent in that De
Keyser suggests a curing agent having at least two active hydrogen
atoms. The examiner also finds it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
use the claimed active hydrogen curing agents for epoxy-based
Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200

6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
solventless resins as resins having at least one active hydrogen
atom contained in an amino group were well known to those of
ordinary skill in the art, citing Marten, Tesch, and Waddill as
evidentiary support. (Examiner’s Answer, page 8, lines 1-8).
The examiner also concludes that the selection of the epoxy
resin and curing agent for the claimed viscosity and duration of
viscosity would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made in that De Keyser describes
that a solventless adhesive must have low viscosity for
application of the adhesive to the film. The examiner
additionally concludes that the selection of the epoxy resin and
curing agent for the claimed viscosity and duration of viscosity
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made as it was well known in the adhesive
art to select the solventless epoxy adhesive in order to obtain a
desired low viscosity. As evidentiary support for this
conclusion, the examiner again relies upon Marten, Tesch, and
Waddill. (Examiner’s Answer, page 8, second paragraph)
As to the claimed duration of 20 minutes, the examiner
concludes that the selection of the epoxy and curing agent is
described by De Keyser’s teaching that adhesivity is acquired over
time varying from a few minutes to several hours. (Examiner’s
Answer, page 8, second paragraph).
Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200

7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
The examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention as made would have been motivated to
select an epoxy resin and a curative such that the adhesive formed
has the claimed viscosity of 1,000 to 10,000 cps at 40°C for at
least 20 minutes. According to the examiner, De Keyser describes
the optimization of the viscosity for the application of thin
films, the avoidance of excessive viscosity, and the use of low
viscosity adhesives to manufacture thin adhesive film laminates.
(Examiner’s Answer, Page 9, first paragraph).
The examiner has further found that it would have been
obvious to press laminate films together using cylinders as it was
well known in the art to laminate films, e.g. by using rolls to
improve bonding. (Examiner’s Answer, pages 9-10).
ii) The Appellant’s Arguments – Claim 27
a) Isocyanate Functionalized Compounds15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
The appellant initially urges that the limitation “said
adhesive formulation being essentially free of solvent, water, and
isocyanate-functionalized compounds” is not met (Appeal Brief,
page 5, lines 19-20). The rationale is that the “preferred”
adhesive of the primary reference teaches away from the claimed
limitation; the examiner has given no justification in “ignoring”
this important teaching, and this is impermissible picking and
choosing based on hindsight. (Id., page 6, lines 1-6). 23
Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200

8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
This argument is not persuasive.
Assuming that appellant is correct that the embodiment is not
preferred, we still can not ignore the non-preferred embodiments.
All disclosure of the prior art, including unpreferred
embodiments, must be considered. In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747,
750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976). See also Ultradent Products,
Inc. v. Lifelike Cosmetics, 127 F.3d 1065, 1068, 44 USPQ2d 1336,
1339 (Fed.Cir. 1997) (it is error to construe the prior art as
limited to preferred embodiments).
Additionally, we note that the appellant has misapprehended
the grounds of rejection. The examiner need not show that the
limitation is precisely shown in the reference; rather, the
examiner need only show that the claimed ranges would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)(A
patent may not be obtained if “…the differences between the
subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious…”).
The examiner is not held to a 35 U.S.C. § 102 anticipation-type
standard when formulating an obviousness rejection.
Moreover, it is also evident that De Keyser teaches an
adhesive formulation being essentially free of solvent and water.
(Column 1, lines 5-10). We also observe that De Keyser states:

Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200

9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A typical representative of a solventless adhesive which is
preferably used according to the present invention is that
known as a two (or multi) reactive component adhesive, the
two (or more) components of which react together in situ to
form a cross-linked adhesive polymer. Examples of this kind
of adhesive polymer include a hydroxylated polyester or
polyether which is reacted with a di-or polyisocyanate and an
epoxy resin which is reacted with compounds containing at
least two active hydrogen atoms (Col. 1, lines 25-
34)(emphasis added).

The avoidance of solvent is to “prevent the poisoning of
operators by the solvent vapors and to avoid all risk of fire.”
Water is classified as a solvent to be avoided by De Keyser
(column 1, lines 19-24).
De Keyser is directed towards the machinery and method for
applying the solventless adhesive. Other than keeping away from
the solvents, and encouraging the use of multi-component reactive
adhesives, contrary to the Appellant’s position, De Keyser is
silent as to any particular adhesive “preferences.” It lists
only two types as exemplary of the larger group of potential
resins. These two examples form a very small genus.
We also note that one of the two adhesive species in this
genus is an epoxy resin reacted with compounds containing at least
two active hydrogen atoms. This epoxy resin was found by the
examiner to be an adhesive without isocyanate-functionalized
compounds, in that the epoxy resin is reacted with compounds
containing at least two active hydrogen atoms. (Rejection,
Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200

10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
October 31, 2003, page 3, lines 9-11) (see also Examiner’s Answer,
page 6, lines 4-6). The appellant has not contested this finding
in any meaningful way. Selection of one species from a genus is
not necessarily obvious. In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 29 USPQ2d
1550 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(millions of compounds); In re Jones, 958
F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(same). However, in this
instance, when the genus is two exemplary types, one species of
which is isocyanate-free, the isocyanate-free species is only one
out of two and accordingly we conclude that it would have been
obvious to select the isocyanate-free species. See also In re
Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962) (a
disclosure of a limited genus of 20 rendered every species within
that genus anticipated).
Even were we to conclude otherwise, we additionally observe
that the appellant’s position that the isocyanate-containing
option is “preferred” further ignores the knowledge of one skilled
in the two-part reactive adhesives art that isocyanates are a
potential health hazard and worker exposure is to be avoided.
See, e.g. Preventing Asthma and Death from Diisocyanate Exposure,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, publication
No. 96-111 (1996) (Exhibit D). Isocyanates have been known to be
powerful irritants as early as 1955, cause asthma (1973) and death
(1988) (Id., page 4). The selection of the non-isocyanate
20
21
22
23
Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200

11
1
2
3
4
containing species would appear to have been a matter of routine
risk reduction to select a less toxic alternative, especially in
view of De Keyser’s express teaching to avoid poisoning the
worker.
b)Viscosity of 1K – 10K cps for 20 Minutes at 40°C 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
The appellant urges that the De Keyser reference fails to
meet the limitation of selecting the reactants so as to maintain
the viscosity of the adhesive formulation for at least 20 minutes
after mixing within the range of 1,000 to 10,000 cps at 40°C.
(Appeal Brief, page 6, line 18- page 7, line 26). The thrust of
this argument is that the selection of the resin and curative in
De Keyser for “low viscosity” fails to give weight to the claim
limitations including a duration. (Appeal Brief, page 7, lines
14-15).
We are not persuaded by this contention.
The prior art of record teaches the difficulty of spreading a
layer of adhesive thinly (De Keyser, column 2, lines 25-32). Low
initial viscosity is desirable in order to achieve this thin
spreading. (Id., col. 2, lines 21-25). The prior art of record
also teaches that the active life of an adhesive in its ready form
is limited by the reactivity of its components (
19
20
Id., column 1,
lines 64-66).
21
22
23
Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200

12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Read in the eye of one of ordinary skill in the art, this
description teaches that an epoxy system has a useful range of
viscosity from low to high and a useful life span. The question
more properly focused is, in the adhesive/film art, would one of
ordinary skill in the art have found it obvious to mix the
ingredients such that the resulting adhesive would have had a
viscosity at the claimed range for the claimed time at the claimed
temperature?
The examiner has concluded that the claimed ranges are
obvious because De Keyser describes an epoxy adhesive musty have
an initial low viscosity and thereafter the adhesivity after a few
minutes to several hours, (Examiner’s Answer, page 5, lines 12
et. seq.). Waddill is relied upon to describe that “low viscosity”
includes 7300 cps at 25°C. (Id., page 9, lines 16-18)(Waddill,
col. 7, lines 1-4 and 65-69). The motivation to use the epoxy
resin and curative resulting in the claimed viscosity is said to
come from the applied prior art considered as a whole.
Furthermore, the examiner has concluded that viscosity is a
recognized result effective parameter which is optimized. (Final
Rejection, June 2, 2004, page 4).
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The appellant seems to be urging that “low viscosity” as used
in De Keyser and Waddill is somehow different from the claimed
range of 1,000 to 10,000 cps. We disagree. Low viscosity is a
Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200

13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
term of art, meaning that the adhesive may be easily spread.
Waddill provides context for that term. At column 7, lines 1-5,
test results with one epoxy adduct are characterized as “low
viscosity.” They include results of 9700, 7750, 8250, 7300, and
6500 cps at 25°C. Waddill thus describes a low viscosity, i.e.
solventless, adhesive should be in the vicinity of 9700 cps or
below at 25°C. (Waddill, column 6, last line).
The appellant urges that this value is for an epoxy adduct,
not the adhesive formulation. While that observation is true, it
does not change the meaning of the term “low viscosity” as
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.1 Accordingly, it
appears to us that the examiner has correctly determined that the
appellant has simply claimed the useful range of low viscosity
adhesives.
The appellant also contends that the references fail to teach
a time period for the viscosity to be maintained. We disagree.
De Keyser clearly recognizes that adhesivity increases over time
with polymerization – from a few minutes to a few hours. (De
Keyser, column 2, lines 13-16). This is directly related to an
increase in viscosity (Id., column 2, lines 16-19). It also 20

1 See, e.g. Exhibit C, US Patent 5,319,062, column 5, lines 48-56, where “low
viscosity” is considered to be 10,000 centipoise or lower at 40°C.

Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200

14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

closely tracks the claimed range of “at least 20 minutes.”2
Accordingly, we agree with the examiner that De Keyser
suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art a pot life of from a
few minutes to several hours, which is substantially overlaps the
claimed time range for the viscosity of the instant claim.
Accordingly, we find no error in the examiner’s conclusion that
the art as a whole renders the claimed viscosity of claim 27
obvious.
Where the general conditions of the claimed subject matter
are disclosed by the prior art, it is not inventive to discover
the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re
Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this
instance, the evidence supports the conclusion that the viscosity
claimed is simply the useful pot life of adhesives for laminating
films.
For the above reasons, we therefore affirm this rejection as
it relates to claim 27.

2 We also note that it appears that the selection of epoxy/hardener adhesive
formulations for the specific properties of pot life and viscosity were within
the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g. Resin/Hardener
Combinations, Pro-Set Laminating Epoxy Resin/Hardener Combinations, February 23,
2000. (Exhibit A) which lists several commercial epoxies which are within the
claimed viscosity ranges. A pot life on the order of 20 minutes for fluid
applications was known. Epoxy Resins, Their Applications and Technology,
“Adhesives,” pp. 223, McGraw Hill, 1957. (Exhibit B). Furthermore, viscosity,
pot life, and temperature are all known to be interrelated variables to be
optimized. (Id.).
Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200

15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ii) The Appellant’s Arguments – Claim 28
Claim 28 reads as follows:
The method of claim 27 wherein the curative contains two or
more active hydrogens.
The appellant argues that claim 28 contains the further
limitation that the “curative contains two or more active
hydrogens” and that the examiner has not met his burden of proof
by simply stating that the curative was known per se. (Appeal
Brief, paragraph spanning pages 7 or 8).
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
This argument is facially without any substantive merit. De
Keyser states, expressly, that the epoxy resin is “reacted with
compounds containing at least two active hydrogen atoms.” (Column
1, lines 33-34).
We therefore affirm this rejection as it applies to claim 28.
iii) The Appellant’s Arguments – Claims 29-33; 35-41; 43;
45-46; and 48-54
Claim 29 reads as follows:
The method of claim 27 wherein the curative is an
alkanolamine.
The appellant argues, for each of these claims, that they
contain a “further limitation” and that the examiner has not met
his burden of proof by simply stating that the particular curative
or resin was known per se. (Appeal Brief, spanning pages 7 to 23
Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200

16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
16.) The appellant also urges, in each instance, that no motive
has been provided for selecting the particular resin/curative.
Although the claims are each placed in a separate heading,
simply separating out each claim in a separate heading does not
mean that they have been “separately argued.” Meeting a formal
requirement by placing purported argument under a separately
lettered heading does not establish a separate argument within the
meaning of Board Rule 37. Separate argument must include a good
faith argument as to why the claims are separately patentable – a
statement which merely points out what a claim recites, as each of
these purported arguments do, will not be considered an argument
for separate patentability of the claim. 37 CFR § 41.73(c).
The appellant has simply cut and pasted the same argument for
each claim without substantively attempting to traverse the
examiner’s stated position. The appellant has done this 20 times,
covering multiple pages with repetition. This is unpersuasive,
wastes both the appellant’s money and the Board’s time, and does
nothing to advance the prosecution of the application.
A legitimate argument would assert and explain why, for
example, alkanolamines would not have been well-known as curative
agents for epoxy adhesives, or what it is about them that sets
them apart from standard amines. See Manuel of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) ¶ 2144.03C. (“To adequately traverse such a
Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200

17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

finding, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed
errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why
the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-
known in the art.”)3
Furthermore, the examiner made a finding that the
specifically recited curatives and resins were well-known for
these same functions. (Office Action October 31, 2003). Not once
since then has the appellant substantively denied that position or
pointed to any persuasive evidence that these curatives and resins
were not known equivalents. Accordingly, in the absence of an
express traversal contradicting the examiner’s holding we accept
as an operative fact that the recited resins and curatives are
well known in the art.
As stated in In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536
(CCPA 1982) “Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent for
another need not be present to render such substitution obvious.”
It appears that the appellant is simply claiming several well-
known alternative curatives and resins.
Accordingly, we shall affirm the rejection of these claims as
well.

3 The necessity of expressly asserting that the examiner’s finding that a
claimed feature is well known is incorrect also flows from the duty of
disclosure requirements of 37 CFR § 1.56. To merely assert that an alleged well
known feature has not been shown in the cited prior art, with actual knowledge
that the examiner’s statement is in fact correct, withholds material information
Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200

18

B) The Rejection of Claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over De Keyser in view of at least one of Marten,
Tesch, and Waddill, further in view of Dubois.
Claims 34 reads as follows:
The method of claim 27 wherein the curative is a carboxyl-
terminated polyester resin.
The examiner has found that it would have been obvious to use
a carboxyl-terminated polyester resin as a curative instead of a
compound containing at least two primary or secondary amine
hydrogen atoms in view of Dubois’ discussion of suitable curing
agents for epoxy. (Office Action, October 31, 2003, pages 6-7).
The appellant urges that Dubois cannot be combined with De
Keyser because the Dubois reference contemplates solvents.
This argument is unpersuasive. Dubois expressly states that
its resins may be cured by any suitable curing agent for curing
epoxy resins. (column 18, lines 4-6). Dubois description is not
limited by the solvent or solventless nature of the final product.
Dubois teaches the equivalence of the carboxyl terminated
polyester of the claim.
Accordingly, we affirm this rejection.

and would be inconsistent with the duty imposed by § 1.56.
Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200

19
C) The Rejection of Claims 42, 44, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. 1
§ 103(a) 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Claims 42, 44, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over De Keyser in view of at least one of
Marten, Tesch, and Waddill, further in view of Davis.
Claim 42 reads as follows:
The method of claim 27 wherein at least one of the first
substrate or the second substrate is a polymeric film comprised of
a thermoplastic selected from the group consisting of polyethylene
terephthalate, polyethylene, polypropylene, and polyvinylidene
chloride.
The examiner has found that Davis discloses the lamination of
films recited in claims 42, 44, and 47. The examiner then
concludes that it would have been obvious to use these films in De
Keyser’s process. (Office Action, October 31, 2003, page 7).
The appellant urges that Davis cannot be combined with De
Keyser because Davis contemplates the use of solvents. (Appeal
Brief, page 17). This argument is unpersuasive.
De Keyser expressly states that the films are preferably
plastics materials (column 1, line 14) and can be used in
packaging. Davis notes that flexible film laminates are currently
used in the packaging industry and such laminates are said to be
“very often” formed from “polyethylene terephthalate.” (column 1,
Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200

20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
lines 39-45). Although Davis does describe water-borne laminating
adhesives, the underlying films are still taught to be appropriate
for the packaging art. One having ordinary skill in the art would
reasonably have expected Davis’ polyethylene terephthalate also to
be useful in the De Keyser process. We have not been directed to
evidence tenting to show that polyethylene terephthalate is not a
plastic film as described by De Keyser. Naked attorney argument
aside, there is no reason why the Davis films are not capable of
being laminated in De Keyser’s process.
We AFFIRM this rejection as it relates to claim 42.
Claim 44 reads as follows:
The method of claim 27 wherein both the first substrate and
the second substrate have a thickness of from about 10 to about
100 microns.
The appellant has again urged that Davis relates to solvents.
We have found this unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
However, the appellant also states that the “Davis reference does
not appear to discuss ‘thickness of from about 10 to about 100
microns.’” (Appeal Brief, page 18, lines 14-17). This statement
is incorrect at best and misleading at worst.
Even a cursory review of Davis reveals several examples of
films that are laminated, including 2 mil polyethylene (column 8,
line 12) 2 mil polyamide (column 9, line 2) and 0.5 mil polyester.
Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200

21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
One mil is 2.54 x 10-5 meters. One micron is 1 x 10-6
meters. (See, e.g. Mark’s Standard handbook for Mechanical
Engineers, Tenth Edition, page 1-22)(Exhibit E). 0.5 mil is 1.77
x 10 –5 meters, or 17 microns. 2 mil is 5.08 x 10 –5 meters, or
50 microns. Both 17 and 50 microns appear to fall between 10 and
100 microns. Appellant’s statement that he is “puzzled” why this
rejection was applied is meritless.
This rejection is therefore AFFIRMED as it relates to claim
44.
Claim 47 was not been separately argued in any meaningful
way, accordingly it falls with claim 44. This rejection is
therefore AFFIRMED as it relates to claim 47.
Summary of Decision13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The rejection of claims 27-33, 35-41, 43, 45-46, and 48-54
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over De Keyser in
view of at least one of Marten, Tesch, and Waddill is SUSTAINED.
The rejection of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over De Keyser in view of at least one of Marten,
Tesch, and Waddill, further in view of Dubois is SUSTAINED.
The rejection of claims 42, 44, and 47 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over De Keyser in view of at least
one of Marten, Tesch, and Waddill, further in view of Davis is
SUSTAINED.
Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200

22
1
2
3
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED 4
5
6

/Richard E. Schafer/ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
/Michael P. Tierney/ )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
/James T. Moore/ )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 2006-0415
Application No. 10/267,200

23
STEPEN D. HARPER
HENKEL CORPORATION
LAW DEPARTMENT
2500 RENAISSANCE BLVD., SUITE 200
GULPH MILLS, PA 19406