UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
Appeal No. 2006-0791
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,312
Ex parte GORE ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC.
(6,254,978),
Appellant.
ENTERED: 28 March 2007
DECISION – Bd. R. 52(a)
Before TORCZON, LANE, and NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.
TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judge.
INTRODUCTION
The patent owner (Gore) requests rehearing of the portion of the decision on
appeal that affirmed the rejection of claims 29-34 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 in view of prior art, while reversing other rejections. The request has been
granted to the extent that the contested portion of the decision has been
reconsidered, but the requested relief is DENIED.
CONTESTED POINTS
Gore identifies two points it believes were overlooked or misapprehended in
concluding the claims would have been obvious. First, Gore contends that the
finding that fluorinated films would be strong was mistaken. Second, Gore
contends that the Board overlooked evidence that ultra-high molecular weight
polyethylene (UHMWPE) has better mechanical properties than polytetrafluoro-
ethylene (PTFE). The Board made neither mistake and so the opinion stands
without modification. The following discussion explains why Gore is mistaken.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013