Ex parte CHERUVU et al. - Page 11




               Appeal No.      95-2035                                                                                                
               Serial No.      08/083,864                                                                                             
                       Tong II acknowledges that polydispersity index and melt flow ratio both provide information on                 

               molecular weight distribution (page 2).  Since the preferred blend of Bailey appears to have identical or              

               substantially identical polydispersity index and melt flow ratio properties to that claimed, it would also             

               appear to have an identical or substantially identical molecular weight distribution to that claimed.  None            

               of the affidavits provides a direct comparison of molecular weight distribution or flow ratio between the              

               claimed polymer blends/components and the preferred polymer blends/components of Bailey.                               

               Additionally, while appellants rely on a "calculated" comparison using Bailey's disclosed regression                   

               model equations, appellants have not provided any reasoning to show that one of ordinary skill in the                  

               art would have reasonably expected Bailey's regression model equations to be equally applicable to the                 

               experimental data of specification examples 3-5.  There is no showing that the specification data was                  

               obtained under identical experimental conditions of temperature, catalyst, ethylene/comonomer ratio,                   

               etc., and, if not, what the effects of any differences might be.  Indeed, Bailey used different load                   

               amounts in obtaining high load melt index and melt index data than appellants did.  Appellants have the                

               burden of explaining the data.  In addition, appellants argue the Tong and Shirodkar affidavits "reflect               

               the different requirements of film versus blow molding products" (Brief page 15).  Tong I states Bailey                

               is targetted to film manufacture (page 1).  However, these arguments are not persuasive because                        

               Bailey explicitly states his polymer blends are useful for film manufacture or in blow molding techniques              

               (abstract).  Finally, the lack of flow ratio data in Bailey is not evidence that "Bailey does not suggest our          

               products," contrary to the Tong II affidavit (Tong II, paragraph bridging pages 3-4).  Therefore, based                


                                                              Page 11                                                                 





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007