Appeal No. 2000-1031
Application No. 08/591,330
The examiner’s basic position (answer, pages 5-6) is:
As disclosed by Hughes, “the I10/I2 value of the
polymer is essentially independent of the
polydispersity index (i.e., Mw/Mn) of the polymer”
(col. 3, lines 10-13). As such, the polydispersity
index Mw/Mn of the polymer can be any value within the
limits of the equation Mw/Mn ≤ (I10/I2 - 4.63) since the
I10/I2 value and Mw/Mn of the polymer are “essentially
independent.” The values for Mw/Mn and I10/I2 therefore
do not “operate simultaneously” in the sense that they
should be interpreted as being fixed by a particular
corresponding value of I10/I2 or Mw/Mn. Instead, the
parameter equations disclosed by Hughes et al. must be
interpreted as being ranges for each of the I10/I2 and
Mw/Mn values. Hughes et al.’s equations therefore mean
that I10/I2≥5.63 and, since Mw/Mn≤(I10/I2 -4.63), Mw/Mn
may vary from unity (i.e., if I10/I2=5.63) to a large
number (i.e., if I10/I2 is a large number then Mw/Mn is
also a large number). Hughes et al.’s disclosure of
values within the claimed ranges therefore anticipates
these ranges.
We cannot agree with the examiner’s interpretation of the
prior art teachings. Although Hughes states that I10/I2 and Mw/Mn
of the polymer are “essentially independent,” the reference
unequivocally teaches that the substantially linear ethylene
polymer described in Hughes must satisfy the following
expressions:
I10/I2 ≥ 5.63
Mw/Mn ≤ (I10/I2) - 4.63
By contrast, appealed claim 1 requires the metallocene
polyethylene to satisfy the following relationships:
I10/I2 < 6.53
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007