Appeal No. 2004-0770
Application No. 09/795,310
claims 4 and 5 stand or fall with claim 1, while claims 2, 3 and 6
do not stand or fall together (Brief, page 4). Since appellants
present reasonably specific, substantive arguments for the separate
patentability of claims 2, 3 and 6 (Brief, pages 8-9; Reply Brief,
pages 6-7), we consider these claims separately. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(2000) and In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383,
63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Representative independent
claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A polypropylene composition comprising from 1 to 99% by
weight of elastomeric polypropylene obtained through
(co)polymerization of propylene or propylene and an olefin other
than propylene, in the presence of a metallocene catalyst that
comprises a metallocene compound, an activator compound and
optionally an organaluminum compound, or of a supported metallocene
catalyst that comprises the metallocene catalyst supported on a
particulate carrier, or of a catalyst that comprises tetraneophyl
zirconium supported on alumina, and from 1 to 99% by weight of
atactic polypropylene, totaling 100% by weight.
The examiner relies upon Cheng et al. (Cheng), U.S. Patent
6,342,565, issued Jan. 29, 2002 and filed May 12, 2000, as the sole
evidentiary basis supporting the rejection on appeal (Answer, page
3). Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Cheng (Answer, page 4). We affirm this rejection
essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer and those reasons
set forth below.
OPINION
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007