Ex parte CHERUVU et al. - Page 12




               Appeal No.      95-2035                                                                                                
               Serial No.      08/083,864                                                                                             
               on this record, we find the Tong I, Tong II and Shirodkar affidavits lack sufficient probative value to                

               overcome the rejection.                                                                                                

                       The rejection of  claims 1-6 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or in the                    

               alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bailey is sustained.                                           



               2.  Provisional rejection of claims 1-6 and 12-14 under the judicially created doctrine of                             
               obviousness-type double patenting copending application 08/083,866.                                                    

                       The examiner states                                                                                            

                               Claims 1-6 and 12-14 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created                           
                       doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 4,                          
                       6, 8, 9, 13, and 14 of copending application Serial No. 08/083, 866.  Although the                             
                       conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other                         
                       because the two sets of claims overlap.  The properties of the blend specified in the                          
                       copending application are substantially the same as those recited in the instant claims.                       
                               This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the                          
                       conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.   (Answer page 6)4                                                          

                       Appellants' arguments that film versus blow molded products have different requirements, and                   

               that the claims in this application do not recite dynamic elasticity and complex viscosity and the claims in           

               the '866 application do not recite a polydispersity index (Brief page 15) are not persuasive.  The same                

               ethylene polymer blends can be used for either the manufacture of film or in blow molding techniques                   

               (see e.g., Bailey's abstract).  Moreover, merely reciting a new property or use of a product does not                  



                       4"Provisional" rejections of the sort here involved are authorized by MPEP § 804 and have been sanctioned      
               by this Board (see, e.g., Ex parte Karol, 8 USPQ2d 1771 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1988)) and by the predecessor of our     
               reviewing court (see, e.g., In re Wetterau, 356 F.2d 556, 148 USPQ 499 (CCPA 1966)).                                   
                                                              Page 12                                                                 





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007