Ex Parte PerdomiDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 2, 201210557297 (B.P.A.I. May. 2, 2012) Copy Citation 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. 10/557,297 11/18/2005 Gianni Perdomi 124-287USMI6108 7324 74275 7590 05/02/2012 DILWORTH IP, LLC 2 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE 206 TRUMBULL, CT 06611 EXAMINER MURATA, AUSTIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1712 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/02/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte GIANNI PERDOMI ________________ Appeal 2010-011606 Application 10/557,297 Technology Center 1700 ________________ Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A stretchable wrap film having a value of MD tear resistance; a value of TD tear resistance; a value of MD tensile strength at 30%; and a polymer blend, the polymer blend comprising (percent by weight): I) 50 to 90% of an ethylene polymer composition having a density ranging from 0.920 to 0.94 g/ml, the ethylene polymer composition being selected from the group consisting of Appeal 2010-011606 Application 10/557,297 2 an interpolymer of ethylene with at least one comonomer selected from the group consisting of (1) ethylenically unsaturated organic monomer of esters of unsaturated C3-C20 monocarboxylic acids and C1 to C24 monovalent aliphatic or alicyclic alcohols, wherein the ester content ranges from 2.5 to 8 wt % based on the total weight of the ethylene polymer composition (I) and a blend comprising: (a) a low density ethylene homopolymer (LDPE) having a melt flow rate ranging from 0.1 to 20 g/10 min and a density value of 0.915-0.932 g/ml; (b) an interpolymer of ethylene with at least one ester in an amount of at least 2.5 wt%, the at least one ester being selected from the group consisting of unsaturated C3-C20 monocarboxylic acids and C1 to C24 monovalent aliphatic or alicyclic alcohols; and (c) an ester content of the blend (a) + (b) from 2 to 8 wt%; and II) 10 to 50% of an ethylene-based polymer component having a density ranging from 0.9 to 0.930 g/mL and a melt flow rate up to 4 g/10 min, the ethylene-based polymer component being selected from the group consisting of i) a linear polyethylene consisting of ethylene and 0.5 to 20% by mole of a first CH2=CHR α-olefin, where R is a hydrocarbon radical having 2-8 carbon atoms and ii) a polymer blend comprising (a) 80-100 parts by weight of a random polymer of ethylene with at least one second CH2=CHR α- olefin, where R is a hydrocarbon radical having 1-10 carbon atoms, the random polymer (a) containing up to 20 mol% of the second CH2=CHR α -olefin and having a density between 0.88 and 0.945 g/mL; and (b) from 5 to 30 parts by weight of a random interpolymer of propylene with at least one third CH2=CHR α- olefin, and optionally ethylene, where R is a hydrocarbon radical having from 2 to 10 carbon atoms, said random interpolymer (b) Appeal 2010-011606 Application 10/557,297 3 containing from 60 to 98% by weight of units derived from propylene, from 2 to 40% by weight of recurring units derived from the third CH2=CHR α-olefin, and from 0 to 10% by weight of recurring units derived from ethylene, and having a xylene-insoluble fraction a room temperature greater than 70%; wherein the stretchable wrap film has a ratio between the value of MD tear resistance and the value of TD tear resistance over 0.3 and the value of MD tensile strength at 30% ranges between 6.5 to 15 N. The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of obviousness (Ans. 3): Karim 4,337,298 Jun. 29, 1982 Cometto WO 95/20009 Jul. 27, 1995 Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a stretchable wrap film comprising a polymer blend of, inter alia, an interpolymer of ethylene with a comonomer of ethylenically unsaturated esters of unsaturated monocarboxylic acids, and a linear polyethylene. Appealed claims 1-3, 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Karim. Claims 4, 5, 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Karim in view of Cometto. Appellant has not separately argued any particular claim on appeal. Also, Appellants has not presented a separate, substantive argument against the § 103 rejection over the combination of Karim and Cometto, stating only that Cometto does not remedy the asserted deficiencies of Karim. Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 1. Appeal 2010-011606 Application 10/557,297 4 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 rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. There is no dispute that Karim, like Appellant, discloses a polymer blend of an interpolymer of ethylene and the claimed comonomer, and a low density ethylene polymer. Appellant notes that while Karim discloses a low density ethylene polymer, the presently claimed component (II)(i) is a linear polyethylene. However, Appellant has not refuted the Examiner’s finding that Karim discloses both a low pressure and high pressure copolymerization process and that it is known in the art that the low pressure process produces linear polymers. Appellant argues that even it were true that the low pressure process produces linear polyethylene, “there is no particular teaching of linear low density polyethylene out of all possible low density polyethylenes” (Br. 9, second para.). However, it is not necessary to establish a prima facie case of obviousness that Karim teaches a preference for linear low density polyethylene, as pointed out by the Examiner. We agree with the Examiner that Karim’s teaching of a low pressure process for producing the low density ethylene polymer would have suggested the use of linear low density polyethylene. Appellant also maintains that “Karim is completely silent as to the comonomer content of the ethylene copolymer” (id.). However, as set Appeal 2010-011606 Application 10/557,297 5 forth by the Examiner, Karim teaches that the optimum properties for various end uses of the polymer blend may vary according to the ratio of the two ethylene polymers (col. 4, ll. 33-40). Regarding the claimed ethylene interpolymer, Karim is silent with respect to the density of the interpolymer. However, the Examiner points out that the interpolymer of Karim has the same amounts and types of esters as presently claimed and melt flow rates that correspond to the polymers disclosed at page 12 of Appellant’s Specification, i.e., Appellant’s polymers have melt flow rates between 1 and 2, whereas the copolymers of Karim have values in the range of 1-100, preferably about 2-40. Appellant has not rebutted the Examiner’s rationale that Karim’s interpolymers of the same monomers, in the same amounts, having the same melt flow index, would be reasonably expected to have a density within the claimed range. As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon objective evidence of non-obviousness, 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. 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 ssl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation