EWEN V. DOLLE et al. - Page 22




          Interference 103,482                                                        
               of the formula                                                         
                              R (FluorR )(CpR’ )MR R9                 12                                   
                                       n     m                                        
               where                                                                  
               Cp is cyclopentadienyl which may be substituted at the                 
               2 and/or 3 positions, Fluor is fluorenyl (a substituted                
               cyclopentadienyl) which may be substituted at the 2, 3,                
               4 and/or 5 positions, each R and R’ may be hydrogen or a               
               hydrocarbyl substituent having from 1-20 carbon atoms and              
               is the same or different, R  may be a structural bridge9                                           
               imparting stereorigidity to the compound, M may be                     
          titanium,                                                                   
               zirconium, hafnium, vanadium, niobium or tantalum, n is                
                                                       1     2                        
               from 0 to 4, m is from 0 to 2 and each R and R  may be                 
               halogen, with the proviso that at least one of the R and               
               R’ substituents is not hydrogen].                                      
          The APJ further indicated that Claims 1-8 of Ewen’s U.S.                    
          Patent 5,036,034, Claims 1-28 of Ewen’s Reissue Application                 
          08/489,800, and Claims 4-6, 8, and 12-30 of Dolle’s                         
          Application 08/147,006, all the claims pending in the                       
          respective applications, correspond to Count 2 (Paper No. 58,               
          p. 5).                                                                      
               CC. June 30, 1998 - The APJ entered Decisions On Dolle                 
          Motion For Amending Claims No. 2 Under § 1.633(f)(Papers 23                 
          and 24)(Paper No. 59).  The APJ denied entry of the proposed                
          amendment to dependent Claim 8 because the amendment was                    
          unnecessary (Paper No. 59, p. 2, last full para.).  The motion              
          to be accorded benefit of the earlier filing dates of U.S.                  
          Applications 07/927,869 and 07/525,096 and Fed. Rep. Germany                
                                         22                                           





Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007