Appeal No. 1997-2234
Application 08/254,345
inclusive of a family of styrene/butadiene copolymers and a
different family of “preferably” homogeneous ethylene/alpha-
olefin copolymers. Based on appellants’ nonlimiting and
inherently inconsistent and confusing definition of the term
“plastomer”, one can only speculate as to whether or not the
terminology in the appealed claims referring to a “plastomer”
component covers prior art polymers such as Norpoth’s exemplified
Dowlex 2045-03 ethylene 1-octene copolymer, which is “commonly
referred to” as linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE). See
Norpoth at column 5, lines 60-61.
Under the circumstances recounted above, it is our view that
the claims on appeal, as well as allowable claim 31, do not
define the metes and bounds of the invention with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. Therefore, pursuant to
our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter a new rejection
against the appealed claims as well as against claim 31 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We procedurally reverse the
stated prior art rejections, because we consider the appealed
claims to be sufficiently indefinite that application of the
prior art to the claims is not possible without considerable
speculation and assumptions.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007