Appeal No. 1996-0328
Application 08/060,891
In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
1. Patentability of claim 1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, 27-31 and 33-35
Claims 1, is reproduced below:
1. A biaxially stretched, heat shrinkable film comprising a terpolymer of
monomers (a), (b) and (c), wherein
monomer (a) comprises ethylene,
monomer (b) comprises 1-hexene, and
monomer (c) comprises 1-butene,
wherein said terpolymer has a density less than 0.915 g/cm . 3
The examiner rejected claims 1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 20, 27-31 and 33-35 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over the combination of the Lustig, Warren, Steinert, Machon, Kohyama, Tominari,
Sugahara and Durand patents.
Steinert describes terpolymers of an ethylene, butene-1 and hexene-1. Examples 5 and 1054
describe terpolymers of ethylene, hexene-1 and butene-1 that have densities of which meet the terpolymer
required by applicants’ claim 1. The terpolymers are described as useful in the formation of food film55
wraps. Steinert describes every limitation of claim 1 except the limitation that the film is a biaxially56
stretched heat shrinkable film. Lustig and Warren describe biaxially stretched heat shrinkable films made
from a copolymer of ethylene and one or more alpha olefins. Thus, these patents generally teach and do
not exclude terpolymers. Both Lustig and Warren teach biaxially stretched heat shrinkable films formed
from ethylene polymers having densities less than 0.915 g/cm . In our view, the person having ordinary3 57
skill in the art would have been motivated to form biaxially stretched heat shrinkable films from the
terpolymers described by Steinert in order to obtain a film with improved optical properties, improved haze
54Steinert, page 3, lines 36-37.
55Steinert, page 4, table 1, and page 5, table 3.
56Steinert, page 3, lines 54-59.
57Lustig, column 2, lines 17-20; Warren, column 4, lines 16-17.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007