Appeal No. 95-1959
Application 07/894,128
variables in the proffered showing makes it impossible to
attribute the results in the declaration to the nature of the
carrier or support. Indeed, we question whether by reference
to Example 3 in the specification in the declarations and the
reference in Example 3 to procedures "similar" to procedures
in other examples, the declaration adequately defines what was
the nature of the experiment conducted by declarant.
It is also apparent that in making the above-noted
declarations, the declarant either ignored or overlooked the
rejections of record and the teachings of certain of the
references relied on to reject the claims as in, for example,
Maemoto where polypropylene of a particle size which would be
considered "finely divided" is taught as a carrier for
catalysts as claimed. Further, it is unclear whether
declarant observed the caution in Maemoto that the carrier
material must be insoluble or sparingly soluble in the
polymerization medium. This is the very point we believe the
examiner is attempting to make in the paragraph bridging pages
6 and 7 of his Answer and which appellants chose not to
address in their reply brief. Thus, we are also unable to
determine the basis for declarant's conclusion on page 2 of
the first declaration that reactor fouling was due to
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007