Appeal No. 1999-2661
Application 08/430,632
We now consider the ground of rejection of appealed claims 11 and 20 under § 103(a)
over Van Iseghem taken in view of Grancio. The examiner finds that Grancio teaches a
thermoformable polymer blend which comprises, inter alia, polypropylene and a thermoplastic
styrene-butadiene-styrene block copolymer and contends that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have used this polypropylene composition as layer 3 of the multi-layer film of Van
Iseghem, contending that the said block copolymer falls within the definition of hydrocarbon
resin in claim 11 (answer, page 6). Appellant points out that even so, the composition of Grancio
does not fall within the blend of polypropylene and a hydrocarbon resin as the latter term is used
in claim 11 (brief, pages 15-16). On this record, we must agree with appellant that that the block
copolymer is not a hydrocarbon resin as that term is used in appealed claim 11, and thus we must
reverse this ground of rejection.
In summary, we affirm the ground of rejection of claims 11 through 13 under § 103(a) as
being obvious over Van Iseghem in view of Bossaert and reverse all other grounds of rejection.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007