Ex Parte Tau et al - Page 2

            Appeal Number: 2007-2665                                                                          
            Application No. 11/216,805                                                                        

                         (b) 5 weight percent ethylene;                                                       
                         the first layer characterized as having a:                                           
                                (1) machine direction tear of at least about 100 g/mil,                       
                                (2)  Haze value of less than about 10 percent,                                
                                (3)  45° Gloss greater than about 65 percent, and                             
                                (4)  Dart value greater than about 200 g.                                     
                   The Examiner relies upon the following reference in rejecting the appealed                 
            claims:                                                                                           
            Genske EP 0 229 476 A1 Jul. 22, 1987                                                              
                Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a film that comprises a first layer,             
            comprising a first polymer that comprises at least about (a) 50 wt % propylene, and               
            (b) 5 wt % ethylene.  In addition, the first layer is characterized as having (1) a               
            machine direction tear (MD-tear) of at least about 100 g/mil, (2) a haze value of                 
            less than about 10%, (3) 45° gloss greater than about 65%, and (4) a dart value                   
            greater than about 200 g.                                                                         
                                                   OPINION                                                    
                  Appealed claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated                  
            by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Genske.                        
                   We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for                              
            patentability.  However, we are in full agreement with the Examiner that the                      






                                                      2                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013