Appeal No. 1996-0328
Application 08/060,891
claimed properties make excellent films having improved resistance to tearing and
improved elongation at break (page 5, lines 10-12; page 4, lines 3-6; Example 6);
and Kohyama and Tominari who teach that films having improved properties may
be prepared from ethylene copolymers of alpha-olefins having 4 to 20 carbon
atoms including terpolymers thereof (Kohyama, page 1, lines 1-9; page 14, lines
23-26; Tominari column 1, lines 8-19; column 4, lines 7-17). The reference in
Australia 556,144 on page 4 at line 52 "bulk density" is a translation error, i.e.,
should be merely density. Further, Petrochem (507) [Sugahara] teaches that films
made from (C -C -C ) terpolymers having the claimed properties have excellent
2 4 6
impact strength and transparency (Abstract; page 72). Thus, it is believed that the
art establishes a strong prima facie case of obviousness. [Bracketed material47
added.]
Applicants argue the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness. Applicants’
position may be understood from the following excerpt from the Brief:
All of the Examiner's rejections rely upon the Lustig et al and Warren
patents as primary references. These references broadly teach production of
biaxially stretched, heat shrinkable films made from VLDPE resins. These
references do not disclose or teach use of the specific terpolymer resins as
presently claimed. These references do have examples of VLDPE bi-polymer films
and in that respect are similar to comparative examples (not of the invention)
disclosed in the present application. In order to supplement the deficiencies of
these primary references as evidence supporting a prima facie case of
obviousness, the Examiner urges their combination with numerous other patents
including the Beran et al, Karol, Kashiwa et al, Durand et al, Steinert, Machon,
Kohyama, Tominari et al, Petrochem 507, and Petrochem 807 references in
various combinations. Such combination of Lustig et al or Warren with these
secondary references is improper. Furthermore, even if such combination were to
be proper, there is no suggestion or motivation to guide one of ordinary skill in the
art to the present invention. Also, the present invention exhibits an unexpected
combination of properties not disclosed or taught by the cited references.48
Emphasis original.
47Examiner’s Answer, paragraph bridging pages 4-5.
48Brief, paragraph bridging pages 9-10.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007