Appeal 2006-2846
Application 10/349,468
polyethylene (EPE) is not the same as low density polyethylene (LDPE) (Br.
10-11). Appellant contends that LDPE has a unique polymer chain, namely
a branched chain (Br. 10), whereas, EPE consists of “individual closed cells
of inert gas suspended in a polyethylene medium” (Br. 10). Appellant also
contends that the Examiner has not provided any evidence to support the
assertion that EPE is an LDPE material (Br. 10).
The Examiner responds that expanded polyethylene foam (EPE) may
be considered “a low density polyethylene material” as claimed (Answer 5).
The Examiner relies on Rosato’s disclosure in the Plastics Processing Data
Handbook that “expanded polyethylene” (EPE) is “a low density, semirigid,
closed-cell, weather-stable, PE homopolymer” (Answer 5). Based on
Rosato’s definition of “expanded polyethylene” the Examiner determines
that Appellant’s claim to the insulating layer “comprising a low density
polyethylene material” is satisfied by Studen’s disclosure of expanded
polyethylene (Answer 5).
We agree with the Examiner’s ultimate conclusion that the claims are
unpatentable over the applied prior art of the § 103(a) rejections.
We adopt the Examiner’s factual findings and conclusions set forth in
the Answer. We add the following discussion primarily for emphasis and
completeness.
Appellant’s only argued distinction over the art of record is the claim
feature “a thermal insulating layer comprising a low density polyethylene
material.” We must interpret the phrase “a low density polyethylene
material.”
During examination of an application, an Examiner gives a claim its
broadest reasonable construction in light of the Specification as the claim
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013