Appeal 2007-2136
Application 10/457,769
homopolymer or copolymer being produced” (id. at col. 5, ll. 52-56). We
conclude that it would have been obvious to include a silicon compound
described in Chien in the catalyst system described in Winslow to provide
stereoregularity.
With regard to claim 28, Appellants argue that this claim “is allowable
over Winslow et al. and Chien since neither reference . . . disclose[s] a
polymerization process with two distinct polymerization steps” (Br. 13). For
the reasons discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that the method
described in Winslow includes the two process steps recited in claim 28.
Thus, we are not persuaded by this argument.
With regard to claim 14, Appellants argue that this claim requires
“that the modifier be added during the polymerization” and that “Chien does
not disclose a process in which a modifier is added in this manner” (Br. 11).
In particular, Appellants argue that, in Chien’s Example 2, the modifier “is
charged to the reactor before polymerization is initiated while in claim 14,
the modifier is added . . . ‘at any point during the formation of the polyolefin
resin’” (id. at 12-13).
We are not persuaded by this argument. Chien’s Example 2 states
that the “polymerization is carried out as in example 1” (Chien, col. 8, ll. 40-
41). Chien’s Example 1 states that a reactor is charged with n-heptane,
propylene is introduced into the reactor, and the components of the catalyst
system are charged into the reactor (Chien, col. 8, ll. 3-10). This example
does not indicate that the components of the catalyst system are added in any
particular order. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to add the outside electron donor after other catalyst components.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013