Appeal No. 2001-1852
Application No. 09/172,544
The examiner has not established that the Williams reference
itself would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in
the art, selecting, from Williams’ disclosed 20-800 dg/min MFR
range, a propylene homopolymer MFR such that a heterophasic
propylene polymer made therefrom has, in combination with the
other characteristics required by the appellant’s claim 1, an
intrinsic viscosity ratio of 1.1 to 2.0. The examiner relies
upon Scheve and Spagnoli only for a disclosure of the limitations
in the appellant’s dependent claims, and not for a teaching which
remedies the above-discussed deficiency in Williams (answer,
page 12).
Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has not carried
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of
the appellant’s claimed invention.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007