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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007