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