Appeal No. 2003-0130
Application 08/950,187
II. The rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Twu
We reverse this rejection for the same reasons enunciated
above with respect to the obviousness rejection, and further note
that claim 3 falls with claim 1.
III. The rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Ishimaru
Beginning on page 5 of the answer, the examiner states that
the copolymer prepared in Examples 8 and 9 of Ishimaru satisfy
conditions (1) and (3) of appellants’ claim 1.
With respect to condition (2) of claim 1, the examiner
acknowledges that the declaration (Exhibit B of the brief)
demonstrates that the copolymer of Ishimaru does not satisfy
formula (I) of condition (2) of claim 1. However, the examiner
states that an objective of Ishimaru is to provide a
polyethylene/ethylene copolymer with high stereoregularity,
therefore, improved anti-blocking and mechanical properties. The
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to employ
Ishimaru’s teaching to increase the stereoregularity of propylene
repeat units in the polymer chain by using an electron donor such
as a saline. (answer, pages 5-6).1
Based on the above reasoning of the examiner, it appears the
examiner’s position is that condition (2) of appellants’ claim 1
is a result determinable variable, that is, if one were to
1 The examiner discusses condition (4) on page 6 of the answer. We are
able to reach our determinations in this case without discussing
condition (4), and therefore do not present discussions regarding
condition (4) herein. With respect to condition (5) of claim 1, we
cannot find a discussion of this condition in the examiner’s answer in
this rejection.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007