Appeal No. 95-1959
Application 07/894,128
Example 2" the supported catalyst from step B., in a
suspension of methylalumoxane and heptane, was used to
polymerize propylene in the gas phase.
By describing the comparative example in the
declaration in narrative terms rather than by explicitly
describing what reactants were used, what amounts or
proportions of reactants were used and what reaction
conditions were used, declarant has rendered it difficult for
us to ascertain exactly what the experiment entailed and what
was being compared. Further, by referencing examples in the
specification in the declaration, which examples themselves
are described as "similar" to other examples which are also
described as "similar" to other procedures, declarant has
injected further uncertainty in determining exactly what was
compared.
Additionally, as noted by the examiner, the scope of
appellants' claim 1 is considerable. No particular metal
complex or alumoxane is claimed nor is any particular
polypropylene, other than it is "finely divided." We agree
with the examiner's conclusion that, in light of the
particular and admitted relevance of the prior art, and in
light of the narrow issue before us, the welter of undefined
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007