Ex parte ONG et al. - Page 4




               Appeal No.      96-0359                                                                                              
               Serial No.      08/083,866                                                                                           

                       carbon atoms as comonomer, said film exhibiting a Dart Drop Impact resistance (F ,                           
                                                                                                            50                      
                       ASTM D1709) of 250 to 600 grams.                                                                             

                       The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed claims              

               are:                                                                                                                 

               Bailey et al.  (Bailey)                       4,461,873                       Jul. 24, 1984                          
               Lee et al.  (Lee)                             5,126,398                       Jul. 30, 19922                         

                       The prior art reference relied upon by this Merits Panel is:                                                 

               Kirk-Othmer ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY, third edition, volume 16,                                           
                       Herman F. Mark et al., editors, published in 1981 by John Wiley & Sons, New York, pages                      
                       388-390.  (Kirk-Othmer)                                                                                      

                                                             ISSUES                                                                 

                       The issues presented for review are: (1) whether the examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 4, 6,             

               8, 9, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bailey, (2) whether the examiner erred in                 

               rejecting claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lee, and (3)                    

               whether the examiner erred in provisionally rejecting claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 14 as being                       

               unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 12-14 of copending application 08/083,864.                                          

                       According to the examiner, the prior rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 14 under                      

               35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bailey has been withdrawn (Answer page 2).                                      

                                                       DELIBERATIONS                                                                


                       2 Lee was filed July 2, 1991 as a continuation of Application 07/271,639, filed November 16, 1988, now U.S.  
               Patent No. 5,047,468.  Thus, Lee is a proper prior art reference.                                                    
                                                              Page 4                                                                





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007