Ex Parte Tau et al - Page 3

            Appeal Number: 2007-2665                                                                          
            Application No. 11/216,805                                                                        

            claimed subject matter is unpatentable over the cited prior art.  Accordingly, we                 
            will sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons set forth in the Answer.1                   
                   The Examiner has found that Genske discloses a multiplayer film which is a                 
            blend of 10 to 65 wt% of polyisobutylene and 35 to 90 wt% of a propylene                          
            copolymer.  The propylene copolymer comprises 70-98 mole percent of propylene                     
            and 2-30 mole percent of ethylene (Answer 4-5).  The Examiner determined that in                  
            view of the substantially identity between the first layer of the film of Genske and              
            the first polymer of claim 1, there is a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed             
            machine direction tear, haze, 45° gloss, and dart value properties are inherently                 
            possessed by Genske’s film (Answer 5).                                                            
                   Appellants have not disputed the Examiner's determination that the                         
            propylene-based first layer of Genske appears to be identical or substantially                    
            identical to the claimed first polymer (Answer 4-8).  Rather, Appellants argue that               
            the claimed machine direction tear and dart value properties are not inherently                   
            possessed by Genske’s film (Br 9-10).  Indeed, the Examiner has admitted that                     
            Genske does not expressly disclose the claimed machine direction tear and dart                    
            value properties.  However, mere recitation of a property or characteristic not                   
            disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability to a composition             
            or a method of using that composition.  See In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950,                      
            186 USPQ 80, 82 (CCPA 1975).  Where, as here, the Examiner has established a                      
            reasonable basis that the property or characteristic recited in the claims would have             
            been inherent in the prior art product, the burden of proof properly shifts to                    
            Appellants to show that this characteristic or property is not possessed by the prior             

                                                                                                              
            1 Appellants have not presented separate arguments for the rejected claims.  Thus,                
            the claims stand or fall together.  We will limit our discussion to claim 1.                      

                                                      3                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013