Appeal 2007-1906
Application 11/127,887
as the representative claims on which we shall decide this appeal as to these
respective groupings of rejected claims.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 10
Representative claim 1 requires a machine direction oriented
monolayer film comprising a propylene copolymer having a specified melt
flow rate and at least one polyethylene, which can be an ethylene copolymer.
The propylene copolymer ingredient can be a propylene-ethylene
copolymer. The film is recited as possessing a specified stretch ratio and is
recited as possessing some dimensional stability as a result of heat setting or
annealing.
The base or core layer of Freedman can be made individually at least
as an intermediate product film (col. 8, ll. 34-41 and 56-58). Appellant does
not challenge with any particularity the Examiner’s determination that
Freedman discloses a polymeric machine direction oriented monolayer film
having a stretch ratio and dimensional stability within the scope of
representative claim 1 (see the Answer at 3 and 4 and the Brief in its
entirety). Rather, Appellant contends that Freedman does not disclose that
the propylene copolymers in the core layer film thereof can include an
ethylene copolymer. The Examiner contends otherwise.
Thus, the principal issue raised in this appeal with respect to the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of representative claim 1 is: has Appellant
identified reversible error in this rejection by asserting that Freedman does
not disclose that its core layer can include an ethylene copolymer? We
answer this question in the negative and affirm the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of representative claim 1 and the rejected claims grouped
therewith.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013