Appeal No. 2006-0548
Application 10/381,877
Appealed dependent claims 4 and 6 further limit multi-layer sheeting encompassed by claim 1 by
specifying an inner layer of different polymers, with claim 4 specifying polyethylene. Claim 5
further limits multi-layer sheeting encompassed by claim 1 by specifying that the multi-layer
sheeting can have an intermediate compatibility layer, that is, a layer which has the properties of
being compatible with an adjacent layer.
Appealed dependent claim 7 further limits multi-layer sheeting encompassed by claim 1
by specifying that the intermediate layer(s) must be “intercalated in a certain order” but fails to
specify that order other than requiring only that the intermediate layer(s) are “attached and/or
coextruded directly or with the interposition of compatibility layer.” Appealed dependent claim
9 further limits the single layer sheeting and multi-layer sheeting encompassed by claim 1 by
specifying that the single and multi-layer sheeting “may have a thickness of the order of 10 to
100 micron” and can have polyamide containing “layers as thick as a few micron to a few tenths
of micron,” which limitations appear to express a desideratum with respect to thickness.
Appealed dependent claim 10 further limits the single layer sheeting and multi-layer sheeting
encompassed by claim 1 by stating examples of “other polymers” including the obviously non-
limiting expression “or others,” none of which limits the “one or more different polymers”
specified in claim 1 in any respect.4
Appealed dependent claim 11 specifies a method of soil treatment which includes the
step of disposing on the soil “a sheeting” encompassed by any one of the preceding claims, that
is, the sheeting is laid on the soil in any fashion and stretched to some extent, however small,
wherein the sheeting or a layer thereof is impermeable to gases of treating agents in the soil.
Turning now to the grounds of rejection under § 102(b), it is well settled that the
examiner has the burden of making out a prima facie case of anticipation in the first instance by
pointing out where each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as required by the
4 We suggest that upon further prosecution of the appealed claims subsequent to the disposition
of this appeal, the examiner consider whether the language of appealed claims 7, 9 and 10
complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, in view of the deficiencies that we find in
these claims.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007