Appeal No. 96-0359
Serial No. 08/083,866
According to the examiner, in regard to appealled claim 13, (1) the claimed blend MFR
overlaps with Lee's disclosure since each polymer component of Lee may individually have an MFR of
about 20 to about 70 (column 2, especially lines 40-41) and the term "about" allows some latitude, (2)
the claimed blend density overlaps with Lee's disclosure because each copolymer may have an
individual density up to about 0.965 (column 2, lines 38-40), (3) one
would reasonably presume Lee's polymer would have the claimed dynamic elasticity in view of the
similarities between the processes of Lee and appellants' claim 13, and (4) appellants have not shown
that the process limitations of claim 13 give rise to unexpected results in the product, given that Lee
teaches the order of producing the HMW and LMW components can be reversed (Answer pages 8-
10). As to claim 6, the examiner states, "the claimed 'about...10 g/10 min.' reads on Lee's 11.6 g/10
min." (Answer page 10).
Appellants argue (1) the claimed high density polyethylene blend density range with a lower
limit of 0.940 excludes the linear low density polyethylene blends of Lee, (2) Lee fails to describe a
melt flow ratio of 80 to 150 as required by claim 14, (3) Shirodkar II states Lee is not directed to any
particular product, i.e. film or blow molding, and the skilled artisan would not know how to produce a
film with superior impact properties based on Lee's disclosure, (4) Lee not only does not enable
making the HMW component of the claims, but also reverses the HMW and LMW formation reactors
in the claimed process, and (5) Lee does not describe elasticity or dynamic elasticity (Brief pages 18-
21; Reply Brief pages 1-4).
Page 14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007