Appeal No. 1995-4535
Application No. 07/955,116
No. 21, appealed claims 47-56 were indicated as allowable if
rewritten in independent form. After indicating that “all
issues” identified in the answer mailed April 13, 1995 “are
moot” (page 3 of the supplemental answer), the examiner newly
rejected appealed claims 32-46 and appealed claims 1-14, 16-
19, 22, 24-30 and 57-61 under “the judicially created doctrine
of double patenting” over the respective claims in two newly
issued U.S. patents. See the supplemental answer at pages 5
and 6. Appellants responded to these new double patenting
rejections in their “Brief in Reply to the Examiner’s
Supplemental Answer” entered as Paper No. 23 on August 18,
1997. Thus, remaining for our review in this appeal are the
new double patenting rejections of claims 1-14, 16-19, 22, 24-
30, 32-46 and 57-61.
Representative claims 1 and 32 are reproduced below:
1. A tear resistant film comprising a total of at least
three stiff and ductile layers situated one on the randomly in
the array wherein (a) at least one layer is a stiff polyester
or copolyester that has a tensile modulus greater than 200
kpsi, (b) at least one other layer is a ductile sebacic acid
based copolyester that (i) comprises at least 1 mole
equivalent of sebacic acid, including ester derivatives
thereof, based on 100 mole equivalents of acid components,
including ester derivatives thereof, in the copolyester, (ii)
has a tensile modulus less than 200 kpsi, (iii) has a tensile
elongation greater than 50%, and (iv) provides from about 1
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007