Ex Parte KENNEDY et al - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1997-2234                                                        
          Application 08/254,345                                                      


          Norpoth et al. (Norpoth)      5,298,326           March 29, 1994            
               Appealed claims 28, 36-39, and 62-69 stand rejected under 35           
          U.S.C.  102(e) as anticipated by Norpoth.  All appealed claims             
          stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as obvious over Norpoth.               
                                   OPINION                                            
               Having carefully considered the record herein inclusive of             
          the originally filed specification, originally filed claims, and            
          the amendments filed January 13, 1995 and September 5 ,1995,  we            
          find that the claims on appeal are unclear to the extent that the           
          determination of whether the herein claimed subject matter is               
          either anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art                     
          disclosures is not possible without considerable speculation and            
          assumptions regarding the meaning and interpretation of the terms           
          (specifically the term “plastomer”) employed in the claims.                 
          Accordingly, we procedurally reverse the stated prior art                   
          rejections of the appealed claims.  See In re Steele, 305 F.2d              
          859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962).                                    
               Appellants claim a multilayer film comprising an outer                 
          sealant layer and a core seal-assist layer from which low                   
          temperature, strong seals can be made which are comparable to an            
          iomomer to ionomer seal.  See the brief at page 7, second                   
          paragraph and the abstract of the disclosure.  Appellants’ outer            
                                         -3-                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007