The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte RANDAL RAY FORD
and RICHARD KINGSLEY STUART, JR.
______________
Appeal No. 2006-0646
Application 10/465,194
_______________
On Brief
_______________
Before WARREN, WALTZ and FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal and Opinion
We have carefully considered the record in this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134, and based
on our review, find that we cannot sustain the grounds of rejection of appealed claims 48 through
51, all of the claims in the application, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Lustig et al. (Lustig) in view of the
evidence in Smith et al. (Smith) (answer, pages 3-5).
We refer to the answer and to the brief for a complete exposition of the positions
advanced by the examiner and appellants.
The plain language of representative independent claim 48 encompasses any copolymer
of ethylene and 1-hexene characterized by ethylene comprising at least about 50 weight percent
of the copolymer, and further by the properties of differential scanning calorimetry melt
transition temperature of about 116° to 122.7°C, a density of 0.917 g/cc, that is, g/cm3, a
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007