Ex parte DAVIS - Page 2


          Appeal No. 1998-1005                                                         
          Application No. 08/362,042                                                   


               The subject matter on appeal relates to a food covered with             
          a film comprising at least one layer, wherein the layer includes             
          an ethylene polymer having the recited properties.  According to             
          the present specification, the ethylene polymers having the                  
          recited properties claims are made by a certain polymerization               
          process using particular metallocene catalysts and, when                     
          converted into films, exhibit "not only excellent physical                   
          properties, such as balanced tear resistance and higher dart                 
          drop impact, but also...superior water vapor transmission rates              
          [WVTR]..."  (Page 3, lines 13-17; page 4, lines 6-9; Figure I.)              
          In addition, it is said that the recited ethylene polymers are               
          characterized by narrower molecular weight distribution and                  
          lower volatiles as compared to resins made from conventional                 
          Ziegler-Natta catalysts.  (Page 5, lines 9-13; page 12, line 31              
          to page 13, line 10.)  Further details of this appealed subject              
          matter are recited in illustrative claims 1 and 10 reproduced                
          below:                                                                       
                    1.  A food covered with a film said film                           
               comprising at least one layer, said film including an                   
               ethylene polymer, said ethylene polymer having a                        
                                                                                       
          indicating whether the proposed amendment was entered, we note               
          that the examiner agrees with the appellant's statements                     
          regarding the status of the claims and status of amendments                  
          after final rejection.  (Appeal brief, p. 1; examiner's answer,              
          p. 2.)  It is clear, therefore, that the examiner has entered                
          the proposed amendment.                                                      

                                          2                                            



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007