Ex parte Paulett

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 16, 1998

07969121 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 16, 1998)

Application for patent filed October 30, 1992.1
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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte HARRY K. PAULETT
_____________
Appeal No. 95-1112
Application 07/969,1211
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KIMLIN, JOHN D. SMITH and WEIFFENBACH, Administrative Patent Judges.
WEIFFENBACH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner's final rejection of claims
1-6 and 14-20 which are all of the claims remaining in the application. We affirm.
Appeal No. 95-1112
Application 07/969,121
2
The Claimed Subject Matter
The claims on appeal are directed to a fluid permeable stretch film. Claim 1 is representative of
the claimed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. A fluid permeable stretch film, comprising:
a first layer of polymeric stretch film capable of stretching beyond its original length;
a second layer of polymeric stretch film capable of stretching beyond its original length,
said second layer bonded to said first layer by cling forces to form a laminated product
wherein a substantial portion of a surface of the first layer contacts a substantial portion of
a surface of the second layer; and
a plurality of perforations defined by said laminated product for transfer of fluids
therethrough.
The Prior Art
The following references are relied upon by the examiner in support of the rejections of the claims
for obviousness:
Parker 3,649,431 Mar. 14, 1972
Briggs et al. (Briggs) 4,418,114 Nov. 29, 1983
Isaka et al. (Isaka) 4,876,146 Oct. 24, 1989
Schirmer 4,935,271 Jun. 19, 1990
Parry 5,013,595 May 7, 1991

The Rejections
Claims 1-4, 14-17, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Parry in view of Briggs and Parker.
Appeal No. 95-1112
Application 07/969,121
3
Claims 5, 6 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Parry
in view of Briggs and Parker, further in view of Schirmer and Isaka.
Grouping of Claims
On page 3 of the brief, appellant states that “[e]ach of the twelve pending claims will stand or fall
on its own.” However, inasmuch as appellants did not separately argue the patentability of the dependent
claims 2-6 and 15-17 as required by 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(6)(iv) (1994), claims 2-4 and 17 will stand or
fall with claim 1 and claims 15 and 16 will stand or fall with claim 14. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175,
1178-1179, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979).
Opinion
We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by appellant. However, we will sustain the
examiner's rejections for the reasons below.
The examiner rejected claims 1-4, 14-17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Parry in view of Briggs and Parker. Appellant argues that there is no basis for combining the
references to arrive at the claimed subject matter. According to appellant, “the combined teachings of
Briggs, Parry and Parker teach a flat sheet of film with intermittent narrow bands of corrugated films cross
lapped by at least 10E to the flat sheet” wherein the “valleys of the corrugated cross lapped bands are
perforated” (brief: p. 4). We do not share this view.
Appellant’s independent claims 1, 14, 19 and 20 define a stretch wrap film laminate comprising a
Appeal No. 95-1112
Application 07/969,121
4
first layer of polymer stretch film such as linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) and a second layer which
can also be LLDPE, the laminate having a plurality of perforations for the
passage of fluids therethrough. Claim 1 requires that a substantial portion of the first layer contacts a
substantial portion of the second layer. Claims 1 and 14 require that the first layer be bonded to the second
layer by clinging forces while claim 19 defines the layers being extruded. Claim 19 further requires that the
laminated film be capable of being stretched at least 80% beyond its original length and that the laminated
film have a plurality of welds associated with the perforations.
Both Parry and Briggs disclose a stretch wrapping film laminate comprising two contiguous
layers of LLDPE (Parry: col. 1, lines 56-64 and Example II; Briggs:col. 4, line 42 to col. 5, line 13). Parry
discloses laminating the layers by clinging forces (Parry: col. 1, lines 62-63) while Briggs discloses extruding
the layers (Briggs: abstract). Claims 1, 14, 19 and 20 further require that the laminate includes a plurality
of perforations to allow the transfer of gaseous and liquid fluids through the laminate film. Appellant admits
on page 2, lines 12-16 of his specification that it is known in the art to perforate a single layer of stretch film.
However, the problem according to appellant is that when the film is stretched, the perforations will cause
the film to tear. In order to overcome this problem, appellant perforates the laminate “by using a hot pin
which is brought close enough to