Appeal No. 2003-1718
Application No. 09/344,295
Thus, Wynne’s composite material differs from the invention
recited in appealed claim 1 in at least two significant ways.
First, Wynne does not disclose the use of a “hydrophobic
polypropylene reinforcing mesh.” Second, contrary to the
examiner’s unsupported allegation, Wynne does not disclose
propylene-ethylene copolymer sheets “polymerized from a
polypropylene and ethylene-monomer blend” (emphasis added), much
less the here recited propylene-ethylene copolymer sheets having
the specified polypropylene and ethylene monomer weight
percents.
Paeglis, like Wynne, discloses liners. (Column 3, lines
15-18.) While Peaglis does disclose the use of polypropylene
scrim as a reinforcement (column 10, lines 15-31), the polymer
sheets used in Paeglis bear no resemblance to the polymer sheets
of Wynne, much less the propylene-ethylene copolymer sheets
recited in appealed claim 1. Specifically, the polymer sheets
described in Paeglis are said to include neutralized acid group
containing elastomeric polymers such as neutralized acid group
containing EPDM elastomer or butyl rubber. (Column 3, line 64
to column 4, line 44.)
Under these circumstances, we cannot subscribe to the
examiner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been led to combine the teachings of Wynne and Paeglis.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007