Appeal No. 1999-2661 Application 08/430,632 We further find that Bossaert discloses low molecular weight resins, “usually less than 5000” molecular weight, which include “hydrocarbon resins” among “[s]uitable resins which can subsequently be hydrogenated,” wherein Examples of hydrocarbon resins are polymers of coke oven gas, cracked naphtha, gas oil and terpene oil. Particularly preferred hydrocarbon resins are hydrogenated petroleum reins. These are usually prepared by catalytically hydrogenating a thermally polymerized steam cracked petroleum distillate fraction, especially a fraction having a boiling point of between 20° and 280° C. These fractions usually are of compounds having one or more unsaturated cyclic rings in the molecule, such as cyclo dienes, cycloalkenes and indenes. It is also possible to hydrogenate resins produced by the catalytic polymerization of unsaturated hydrocarbons. [Col. 1, line 63, to col. 2, line 20.] Based on this record, we determine that one of ordinary skill in this art would have recognized the “low molecular weight” polymeric material required by claim 11 as specified by the term “hydrocarbon resin” as further characterized in the claim and the specification by the method and “relatively impure monomer” materials from which it is made. See generally, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Indeed, it is apparent from the recitation of the monomeric starting materials in the dictionary definitions and as further seen from Bossaert that one of ordinary skill in this art would have known that “hydrocarbon resins” are simply not the carbon and hydrogen containing product of any polymerization process using any hydrocarbon monomer that contains any type of impurity as the examiner contends (answer, paragraph bridging pages 6-7). Thus, we must conclude that claim 11 in fact set outs and circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity, and accordingly, we reverse the ground of rejection under § 112, second paragraph. Turning now to the grounds of rejection under § 103(a), we have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in agreement with the examiner that the claimed thermoplastic multi-layer film encompassed by appealed claim 11 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Van Iseghem and Bossaert to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time the claimed invention was made. The examiner finds that Van Iseghem teaches that layer 3 of the gas barrier multi-layer film taught therein can be a polyolefin composition (col. 3, lines 12-13), and that Bossaert - 5 -Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007