Appeal 2007-2851
Application 10/308,702
coatings of an ethylene-based resin, preferably medium density
polyethylene. Appellants contend that claim 30 recites a base layer
consisting of a propylene homopolymer and optional additives, and that
Breidt not only does not disclose such a layer but teaches away from one.
Appellants point out that “Breidt discloses that the film structures may
comprise certain layers, or a certain layer of the film structure may comprise
a particular resin,” emphasizing that the term “comprise” is open-ended
(principal Br. 18, second para.). However, we fail to perceive any patentable
distinction between Appellants’ base layer consisting of a propylene
homopolymer and hydrocarbon resins, as well as a wide variety of other
additives, and Breidt’s “blends of polypropylene homopolymer with an
aliphatic diene copolymer” (Breidt, col. 3, ll. 32-33). Appellants have failed
to explain how the claimed base layer consisting of propylene homopolymer
and hydrocarbon resins patentably distinguishes over the blends of Breidt.
Concerning the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 12 over the
combination of Barkis and Wilhoit, Appellants fail to present a separate
substantive argument against this rejection but rely upon the asserted
deficiency of Barkis with respect to independent claim 1.
Finally, we turn to the § 103 rejection of claims 18, 22, and 25 over
Idea in view of Liu. Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s finding that
Idea teaches a laminated film comprising a polypropylene base coated with a
thermoplastic polymer having a melting point of not more than 230°F. As
recognized by the Examiner, Idea does not disclose an ethylene polymer
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013