Appeal No. 96-0359
Serial No. 08/083,866
Our deliberations in this matter have included evaluation and review of the following materials:
(1) the instant specification, including all of the claims on appeal, (2) appellants' Appeal
Brief (paper no. 25), (3) the Examiner's Answer (paper no. 26), (4) the appellants' Reply Brief (paper
no. 28), (5) the above-cited prior art references, and (6) the pending claims in Application 08/083,864.
OPINION
1. Rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bailey
At the outset, we note that appellants state claims 6 and 13 should be considered independently
(Brief page 3). Accordingly, dependent claims 3, 4, 8 and 9 will stand or fall with independent claim
14. Claims 6 and 13 will stand or fall individually.
We have carefully reviewed each of appellants’ arguments for patentability, as well as the
affidavit evidence relied upon in support thereof. However, we concur with the examiner that the
claimed subject would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103
in view of Bailey. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 14 as
unpatentable over Bailey for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer.
Bailey describes ethylene polymer blends of a high molecular weight (HMW) component,
preferrably an ethylene-mono-1-olefin copolymer, and a low molecular weight (LMW) component,
preferrably an ethylene homopolymer, useful in manufacturing films or in blow molding techniques
(abstract). The following tables summarize the properties for the claimed blend and its HMW and
LMW components and for Bailey's blend and his HMW and LMW component, generally (Tables I
Page 5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007