Appeal No. 2003-0130
Application 08/950,187
increase the stereoregularity of the propylene repeat units, the
weight percent ether extraction of the copolymer would be
expected to decrease.
On page 11 of the brief, appellants argue that the weight
percent ether extraction value is not always directly related to
the stereoregularity of the copolymer.
On page 9 of the answer, the examiner responds and states
that the copolymer of appellants’ claims and those cited Ishimaru
share similar ethylene unit distribution in the copolymer because
they all are prepared by a process which is substantially similar
to each other.
Again, we observe that the examiner concludes that the
instantly claimed copolymer must be similar to the copolymer of
Ishimaru (similar ethylene unit distribution) because appellants’
copolymer and the copolymer of Ishimaru are each prepared by a
process which is substantially similar to each other.
A comparison made of the process in which the copolymer is
prepared according to Ishimaru (the description beginning in
column 3 at line 62, for example) with the method of preparing
the copolymer set forth in appellants’ specification, beginning
on page 49, illustrates differences in preparation. The examiner
also acknowledges that the processes are not identical, as
discussed above. Yet, the examiner does not explain how, in
spite of the acknowledged differences, that the ethylene unit
distribution of the copolymer in Ishimaru would be similar to the
ethylene unit distribution of the copolymer of appellants’ claim
1. Hence, even if one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to increase the stereoregularity of the propylene
repeating units of the copolymer in Ishimaru, the examiner has
not established that the resultant copolymer would in fact
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007