Ex parte Enlow et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 21, 1999

08288670 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 21, 1999)

Application for patent filed August 9, 1994. According to appellants, the1
application is a division of 08/038,413, filed March 29, 1993, now U.S. Patent No.
5,414,034, issued May 9, 1995.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for
publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte WILLIAM P. ENLOW
and ROGER W. AVAKIAN
__________
Appeal No. 1996-3934
Application 08/288,6701
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before JOHN D. SMITH, PAK and ROBINSON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JOHN D. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
final rejection of claims 1-10.
Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below:
1. An extrusion process for making a polyolefin film,
said process comprising:
Appeal No. 1996-3934
Application 08/288,670
2
forming a polyolefin composition comprising a polyolefin
resin, an organic phosphite ester stabilizer, and a metal salt
of a lactic acid, said phosphite stabilizer being selected
from the group consisting of tetrakis(2,4-di-t-butyl-
phenyl)4,-4'-biphenylylene diphosphonite, tris(2,4-di-t-
butylphenyl)
-phosphite, trisnonylphenyl phosphite, bis(2,4-di-t-
butylphenyl)pentaerythritol diphosphite, and
bis(distearyl)pentaerythritol diphosphite, said metal salt
being a bivalent salt of lactic acid, said polyolefin
composition comprising from 90 to 99.5 weight percent
polyolefin resin, from 0.001 to 5 weight percent phosphite
stabilizer, and from 0.01 to about 5 weight percent of said
metal salt,
b) melt extruding said composition through a filtration
system to produce a filtered polyolefin melt stream, said
filtration system (sic. comprising) a plurality of filter
screens,
c) passing said filtered melt stream through an elongated
die orifice to form a polyolefin film.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner are:
Yukawa 4,366,280 Dec. 28, 1982
Allen et al. (Allen) 4,425,464 Jan. 10, 1984
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Allen in view of Yukawa and admissions of
prior art (specification, page 10).
We cannot sustain the stated rejection.
The subject matter on appeal is directed to an extrusion
process for making a polyolefin film by melt extruding a
particular polyolefin composition through a filtration system
comprising a plurality of filter screens to produce a filtered
Appeal No. 1996-3934
Application 08/288,670
See Yukawa’s example 17 and compare to the composition required for use in2
appellants’ process.
3
polyolefin melt stream which is then passed through an
elongated orifice to form the polyolefin film. The
composition is comprised of a polyolefin resin, certain
specified phosphite
stabilizers, and a metal salt of a lactic acid in relative
amounts as called for in appealed claim 1.
As appellants point out in their brief, neither Allen nor
Yukawa discloses an extrusion process for making a polyolefin
film, much less an extrusion process wherein a polyolefin
composition is melt extruded through a filtration system prior
to being passed through an elongated die orifice to form a
film as required by the appealed claims. Although we disagree
with appellants’ contention that Yukawa does not disclose a
specific polyolefin composition “that includes an acylated
hydroxy acid additive in combination with a phosphite or
phosphonite compound” (brief, page 4), appellants correctly2
argue that the examiner’s stated rejection, which is based on
a “combination of references”, is fundamentally deficient
since the examiner fails to point to any disclosure or
Appeal No. 1996-3934
Application 08/288,670
See the specification at page 3, lines 19-28 and page 3, line 34 to page 4,3
line 6. The “admitted proir art” process relied upon by the examiner (specification,
page 10) involves the use of a spinneret which produces a fiber, not a film.
4
suggestion in the prior art that would have led a person of
ordinary skill in this art to use either the composition of
Allen or Yukawa in an extrusion process as claimed for making
a polyolefin film. That appellants’ process (in terms of the
manipulative steps per se) may be known in the art does not3
remedy the basic deficiencies of the stated rejection.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
JOHN D. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Appeal No. 1996-3934
Application 08/288,670
5
)
DOUGLAS W. ROBINSON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JDS/kis
Kevin E. McVeigh
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
One Plastics Avenue
Pittsfield, MA 01201