Appeal 2007-0072
Application 09/945,861
There is no dispute with respect to the teachings the Examiner finds in
Sugimura and of Brookhart (see Reply Br. unnumbered page 1). The
Examiner finds Sugimura discloses, among other things, “the advantages of
using more than one catalyst compound in one catalyst composition, namely
that the polymer produced has a broad or bimodal molecular weight
distribution,” wherein the catalyst compounds combined include “a
metallocene or a titanium Ziegler-Natta catalyst component with a . . .
transition metal diimine compound in the presence of cocatalysts and a
support” and correspond to the second active polymerization catalyst of
claim 1 (Answer 3 and 6-7, citing Sugimura Abstract, col. 1, ll. 12-23, and
Figure). The Examiner finds Brookhart teaches a catalyst which falls within
the first active polymerization catalyst of claim 1 and produces alpha-olefins
(Answer 3-4, citing Brookhart Abstract, col. 2, col. 10, ll. 12-29, col. 12, l.
54 to col. 13, l. 34, col. 15, ll. 11-20, col. 15, l. 44 to col. 16, l. 15, and col.
16, ll. 46-52). The Examiner finds “the catalysts of Brookhart and those of
Sugimura both use . . . transition metals bonded to a diimine-containing
ligand” (Answer 3-4). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in this art to combine the teachings of Sugimura and
Brookhart with the reasonable expectation of obtaining an olefin
polymerization catalyst composition with more than one catalyst compound
in the composition (Answer 3-4 and 6-7).
Appellants contend there is no motivation in either Sugimura or
Brookhart to combine the references. Appellants make similar findings as
the Examiner with respect to the use of two different polymerization
catalysts and the nature of the olefin polymers thus produced in Sugimura
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013