Appeal No. 2000-1031
Application No. 08/591,330
two parameters described in Hughes (i.e., “I10/I2 ≥ 5.63” and
“Mw/Mn ≤ (I10/I2) - 4.63”). However, it does not satisfy the two
parameters recited in appealed claim 1 (i.e., “I10/I2 < 6.53” and
“Mw/Mn > (I10/I2) - 4.63”), because Mw/Mn can never be greater than
“(I10/I2) - 4.63.” For the examiner’s theory to hold up, a given
polymer must have a variable Mw/Mn or a variable I10/I2. This, of
course, is not possible given the state of the art.
Because the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
is founded on an erroneous interpretation of the prior art, we
reverse the stated rejection.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection, the
examiner’s position is:
In view of Hughes et al., it would have been
prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to blend a carboxylic acid or anhydride graft-
modified metallocene polyethylene having I10/I2 and
Mw/Mn values within the scope of the claims with a
“conventional” polyethylene according to the claims,
to use such a blend as an adhesive, and to form
multilayer articles comprising the adhesive
composition, since Hughes et al. clearly discloses and
suggests such blends and applications.
Again, we cannot agree with the examiner’s analysis. As we
discussed above, the substantially linear ethylene polymer of
Hughes and the metallocene polyethylene of appealed claim 1 are
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007