Ex Parte McLeod

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2012

11217007 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/217,007 08/31/2005 Michael A. McLeod COS 1029 (31223.00088) 6067
25264 7590 12/15/2012
FINA TECHNOLOGY INC
PO BOX 674412
HOUSTON, TX 77267-4412
EXAMINER
JOHNSON, CHRISTINA ANN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2012 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL A. McLEOD
____________

Appeal 2011-013145
Application 11/217,007
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-22. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. In a process for producing a polyolefin film comprising:
providing a primary polymer component comprising an isotactic
propylene homopolymer produced by the polymerization of propylene in the
presence of a Ziegler-Natta catalyst;

providing a secondary polymer component comprising a metallocene-
polymerized isotactic propylene polymer having a xylene solubles content
which is less than the xylene solubles content of said primary polymer
component selected from the group consisting of: a propylene
Appeal 2011-013145
Application 11/217,007

2
homopolymer; and an ethylene-propylene random copolymer having an
ethylene content of about 0.5 wt.% or less;

separately co-extruding said primary and secondary polymer
components together to form a multilayer co-extrudate of said primary and
secondary polymer components in which the primary polymer component is
present in an amount which is greater than the amount of said secondary
polymer component; and

forming an oriented film of said polymer components by stretching
said multilayer co-extrudate in at least one direction.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Cretekos et al. 6,773,818 B2 Aug. 10, 2004
Appleyard et al. US 2005/0085609 A1 Apr. 21, 2005

Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a process for producing a
polyolefin film comprising primary and secondary polymer components.
The primary component comprises an isotactic propylene homopolymer
produced by the polymerization of propylene in the presence of a Ziegler-
Natta catalyst. The second component comprises a metallocene-
polymerized isotactic propylene polymer. The primary and secondary
polymer components are co-extruded together to form a multilayer co-
extrudate.
Appealed claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cretekos in view of Appleyard.
Appellant does not present separate arguments for any particular
claim on appeal. Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall together
with claim 1.
Appeal 2011-013145
Application 11/217,007

3
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, and we add the following for emphasis only.
Cretekos, like Appellant, discloses a co-extrudate of a primary
polymer component and a secondary polymer component wherein the
primary polymer component includes an isotactic propylene homopolymer
prepared by the polymerization of propylene in the presence of a Ziegler-
Natta catalyst (col. 5, ll. 20-28). Cretekos also teaches that the secondary
polymer component comprises a metallocene-polymerized isotactic
propylene polymer (col. 2, ll. 50-55).
The singular argument presented by Appellant is that Cretokos’s
“teaching a composition including a propylene polymer does not suggest to
one skilled in the art to utilize a metallocene isotactic polypropylene in
combination with a Ziegler-Natta isotactic propylene to form an isotactic
polypropylene film” (Br. 4, third para.). However, as pointed out by the
Examiner, “Cretekos does more than merely teach a composition including a
propylene polymer” (Ans. 10, second para.). In particular, “Cretekos
explicitly teaches extruding an isotactic propylene homopolymer produced
by the polymerization of propylene in the presence of a Ziegler-Natta
catalyst (column 5, lines 20-28) with a metallocene-polymerized isotactic
propylene polymer (column 2, lines 50-55) to form a multilayered film
(column 2, lines 25-28)” (id.). Indeed, the first preferred, film-forming
Appeal 2011-013145
Application 11/217,007

4
polyolefin listed by Cretekos is an isotactic propylene homopolymer that
may be Ziegler-Natta-catalyzed (col. 5, lines 21-23). Hence, we find no
merit in Appellant’s argument that “there is no teaching or suggestion in any
of the art of record to utilize two different types of isotactic polypropylene
for an isotactic polypropylene film” (Br. 5, second para.).
Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s legal conclusion that it
would have been obvious to modify the composition of Cretekos in view of
Appleyard for the claimed xylene solubles content.
As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

cam