Appeal No. 2001-1884
Application No. 08/718,692
product was made by a different process”); in accord In re Hirao,
535 F.2d 67, 68-69, 190 USPQ 15, 17 (CCPA 1976); See also In re
De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
(mere arguments in the Brief or conclusory statements2 in the
specification regarding the properties of the claimed product
cannot take the place of objective evidence); in accord In re
Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972).
Even if we were to treat the claimed product-by-process
limitation as the process limitation for carrying out the claimed
method, our conclusion would not be changed. We observe that
Shiraki teaches an inflation film of an ultra-high-molecular
weight polyethylene film (i.e., an extruded ultra-high-molecular
weight polyethylene film3) useful for, inter alia, packaging.
See also column 1, lines 10-26 and column 7, lines 18-28. The
ultra-high-molecular weight polyethylene film has advantageous
properties for packaging, due to “its excellent impact
resistance, abrasion resistance, chemical resistance, tensile
2 We observe certain conclusory statements at page 4, line
34 to page 5, line 6 and page 7, lines 28-32, of the subject
application regarding the advantage of using a polyethylene film
produced by certain extrusion temperatures. However, they are
also unsupported by any factual evidence.
3 See column 1, line 25.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007