Appeal No. 95-2035
Serial No. 08/083,864
The issues presented for review are: (1) whether the examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-6 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Bailey, and (2) whether the examiner erred in provisionally rejecting claims
1-6 and 12-14 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 14 of copending application 08/083,866.
DELIBERATIONS
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation and review of the following materials:
(1) the instant specification, including all of the claims on appeal, (2) appellants' Appeal Brief, (3) the
Examiner's Answer, (4) the appellants' Reply Brief, (5) the above-cited prior art reference, and (6) the
pending claims in Application 08/083,866.
OPINION
1. Rejection of claims 1-6 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by,
or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bailey
Bailey describes ethylene polymer blends of a high molecular weight (HMW) component,
preferably an ethylene-mono-1-olefin copolymer, and a low molecular weight (LMW) component,
preferably an ethylene homopolymer, useful in manufacturing films or in blow molding techniques
(abstract). Bailey's preferred blend has density of 0.950-0.960 g/cc, a high load melt index (HLMI) of
5-12 g/10 minutes at 190E C using a load of 21.6 kg (I ), a melt index (MI) of 0.03-0.5 g/10 minutes
21.6
Page 5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007