Appeal 2007-3962
Application 10/005,846
limited to an improvement over polyolefinic microporous sheets that do not
contain the elastomer.
Giving claim 1 its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the Specification and reading the claim language in light of the Specification
as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, we determine
that the preamble language “improving the mechanical strength” defines a
result of the process and does not affirmatively limit the claimed method.
What the prior art must teach then is a method of providing a
microporous sheet of the claimed blend composition. Appellants admit that
such sheets were known in the art. Appellants have, therefore, not shown
that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated.
We turn our attention to the Appellants’ contention that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 as obvious over Kondo (Reply Br. 12-18).
Appellants’ contention is not convincing for the following reasons.
Kondo describes providing a microporous membrane which is a blend
of polyethylene (aliphatic polyolefin) with no more than 30% polyolefin
such as EPR (ethylene-propylene rubber as claimed) (Kondo ¶ 0013). The
membrane is intended for use as a separator in high capacity batteries, and
polyethylene is used because of its mechanical strength and permeability
properties (Kondo ¶ 0002).
The concentration range of Kondo (no more than 30%) encompasses
the claimed range (less than 10%). The Examiner determines that it would
have been within the ordinary skill in the art to optimize the concentration of
the elastomer to obtain the desired benefits of the blend (Answer 5).
Appellants contend that Kondo does not teach any benefit to adding the EPR
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013