Appeal No. 2005-1472 Page 5
Application No. 09/750,984
particular, appellants place a clear limit as to the scope of
admission of previously known facts at page 3, lines 10-17 of
their specification to the following sentence as reproduced at
page 9 of the brief:
Thus, it is known that films comprising non-heat-
sealable, coextruded, high crystalline polypropylene
layers exhibit a weak bond of the film layers to one
another.
The examiner’s use of other portions of appellants’
specification at page 3 as representing alleged admitted prior
art in the rejections laid before us for review in the answer in
the face of appellants clear disputation of such additional
admissions is untenable and represents reversible error.
We are not unmindful of the examiner’s alternative
obviousness position at page 7 of the answer wherein the examiner
asserts a belief that even if the specification admission is
limited as appellants do indeed so limit it, that admission of
facts “would give one of ordinary skill in the art in this
technically sophisticated field more than enough information to
reduce the claimed invention to practice.” This is so, according
to the examiner (answer, page 7), because:
polypropylene backings using various polypropylene
based compositions and their resultant behavior as
backings are well-known, and it is also firmly believed
that to adjust the cleavage strength of the various
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007