Appeal No. 1997-1684
Application No. 08/223,916
1. Claims 13-14 and 29-70, all of the claims on appeal,
stand rejected for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
either Shamshoum or Hoppin.
2. Claims 29 and 53-70 additionally stand rejected for
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hoppin in view of
either Shamshoum or Ewen.
We have carefully considered the entire record in light
of the opposing positions advanced on appeal. In so doing, we
conclude that the examiner has established a prima facie case
of obviousness. However, we are persuaded that the data
reported on pages 21-22 and 24 (Tables 1-6) of appellants'
specification are indicative of unexpected results as to the
subject matter encompassed by claims 43-44, 51-52, 61-62 and
69-70. Accordingly, we shall affirm the rejections at issue
as to claims 13-14, 29-42, 45-50, 53-60 and 63-68, but reverse
as to claims 43-44, 51-52, 61-62 and 69-70.
There is little question that Shamshoum and Hoppin each
disclose a propylene polymerization process involving a
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been withdrawn and, thus, is
not before us.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007