Appeal No. 2004-2292
Application No. 09/747,537
comprising low density polyethylene. This position by the Examiner seems
reasonable.
Appellants argue that the subject matter of claim 12 is patentable
for the reasons discussed regarding the rejection over Schloegl and
Blemberg. (Brief, p. 6). Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because
Appellants have not addressed the motivation presented by the Examiner
for combining the cited references. Thus, for the reasons presented by the
Examiner we affirm the rejection of claim 12.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9, 10, 13-18, 29, and 30 under 35
U.S.C. 103(a) over the combined teachings of Schloegl and Keller. We
affirm. We select claim 1 as representative.
The Schloegl reference was discussed above.
The Examiner found that Keller describes uniaxially heat shrinkable,
biaxially oriented multilayer polypropylene based films. (Answer, pp. 7-8).
The films contain a core that comprises a blend of a more isotactic
propylene with modifiers which are polyolefin materials which are less
crystallizable due to their higher degree of chain imperfections or lower
isotacticity. Suitable modifiers include polyolefins other than isotactic
polypropylene. (Col. 4, ll. 41-65). Keller discloses that a film comprising the
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007