Appeal No. 2003-0695 Page 5
Application No. 09/732,014
representative claim amounts.4 Nor do appellants specifically
dispute the examiner’s determination that Asanuma describes
(§ 102 rejection) or teaches alone or in combination with Winters
(either of the § 103 rejections) the formation of a copolymer
using a metallocene catalyst and propylene and hexene-1 as
comonomers in amounts corresponding to the representative claim
amounts and the formation of an article as claimed therefrom.
Rather, appellants’ primary argument in opposition to each of the
examiner’s rejections is that the applied prior art does not
recognize that the use of a higher alpha olefin with propylene in
making the polymer with a metallocene catalyst results in an
article possessing time delayed compliance (TDC) characteristics,
as claimed, that reflect greater cold flow resistance than when
such an article is made from an ethylene-propylene copolymer.
Consequently, in deciding this appeal, we focus our discussion on
representative claim 36 and the arguments advanced in the briefs
as to each ground of rejection before us with respect to that
representative claim.5
4 Moreover, it is well settled that a prior art reference is
not limited to the examples disclosed therein but is available as
prior art as to all of the disclosure therein.
5 See 37 CFR § 1.192(a)(2002).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007