Ex Parte Perdomi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 2, 2012

10557297 (B.P.A.I. May. 2, 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.
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