Appeal No. 1997-3906
Application No. 08/233,482
composition is capable of being extrusion coated at the
claimed temperature range. Instead, the process of Edwards
comprises the extrusion coating of a polypropylene blend.
Although this polypropylene blend may include up to 20 percent
low density polyethylene, this last mentioned component of
patentee’s composition has a melt index below the appellants’
claimed range. Moreover, we agree with the appellants that
Example 9 of Edwards teaches away from a composition having
more than 20 percent of this low density polyethylene
component.
In apparent recognition of this above noted distinction,
the examiner sets forth the following rationale in support of
his obviousness conclusion in the paragraph bridging pages 2
and 3 of the answer:
Process of claims differs from process of
Edwards in the type of polyethylene composition
(PEC) used. The substitution of PEC of claimed
process would be obvious because parameters required
in extrusion coating does not differ significantly
when PEC with similar or related physical makeup is
employed[,] see column 2, column 4 of Edwards.
Where significant differences might exist a skilled
person in this art could carry out appropriate
adjustments for extrusion coating by adjusting
temperature so coating is uniformly applied.
We perceive no evidentiary support for the examiner’s
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007