Appeal No. 2004-2292
Application 09/747,537
I find that one of ordinary skill in this art would have known from the written
description in the specification that the term “polymeric modifier” encompasses any
materials which modifies either one or more polymers that are present in the core layer or
the effect of such polymer or polymers on that layer (specification, e.g., page 3, citing
Keller; see Keller, e.g., col. 3, lines 2-9, and col. 4, lines 42-65). However, I find no basis
in the plain language of appealed claim 1 or in the written description in the specification
on which to read into this term the limitation that the only polymer modified is
polypropylene when other polymers are present, and only by such modifiers as
encompassed by the Markush group in appealed claim 3 and similar polymeric materials.
The methods encompassed by appealed claim 19 encompass at least the three steps
specified in the claim, and the transitional term “comprising” opens the claim to methods
including additional steps which provide additional layers and polymeric and other
materials as well as stretch the biaxially orientated film of step (c) in a manner that results
in more shrinkage in either the machine direction (MD) or in the transverse direction (TD),
there being no limitation in this claim on the shrinkage in any one direction or, for that
matter, in the overall area reduction shrinkage as there was in appealed claim 1. See, e.g.,
Baxter, supra.
The differences between the products of the methods encompassed by appealed
claim 19 and the products encompassed by appealed claim 1 resides in the limitations of
the “sides” of the three specified layers and on the shrinkage characteristics specified in
the latter claim. Otherwise, the specified and unspecified ingredients in each of the three
specified component layers and the additional layers which can be present in the product
of the method of claim 19 is essentially the same as discussed above for product claim 1.
Turning now to the two grounds of rejection based on the combined teachings of
Schloegl and Blemberg, and the two grounds of rejection based on the combined teachings
of Peiffer and Blemberg, I agree with appellants’ argument that when Blemberg is read as
26
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007