Appeal No. 2003-1718
Application No. 09/344,295
and second propylene-ethylene-copolymer sheets and
bonded to the first and second propylene-ethylene-
copolymer sheets for reinforcing the membrane; the
polypropylene reinforcing mesh being chemically
compatible with the first and second propylene-
ethylene-copolymer sheets for permitting scrap
produced in a process of manufacturing of the membrane
to be recycled back into the process.
The examiner relies on the following prior art references
as evidence of unpatentability:
Paeglis et al. 4,589,804 May 20, 1986
(Paeglis)
Wynne 5,891,541 Apr. 6, 1999
(filed Jun. 18, 1996)
Claims 1, 3 through 8, and 10 on appeal stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2003) as unpatentable over Wynne in
view of Paeglis. (Examiner’s answer mailed Dec. 17, 2002, paper
22, pages 3-5.)
We reverse.
The examiner states: “Wynne discloses the claimed invention
except for the teaching that the scrim is made of polypropylene
and the specific ratio of ethylene to propylene in the
copolymer.” (Answer, page 3.) The examiner then continues (id.
at pages 3-4):
It should be noted that increasing the amounts of
ethylene and polypropylene are result effective
variables. For example, increasing the amount of
polypropylene directly affects the hydrophobic
property of the composite material. Furthermore,
given the lack of specific teaching in Wynne for the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007