Appeal 2007-2136
Application 10/457,769
Because the outside electron donor is not needed to begin polymerization,
adding any amount of the silicon electron donor after components that are
required for polymerization meets the claim limitation requiring adding the
modifier “during the formation of the polyolefin resin.”
Appellants also argue that the
class of modifiers used in the present invention are more
restrictive than the compounds of Chien. The silicon
compounds of Chien may (or may not) have a hydrogen,
ch[l]orine, bromine, or iodine directly bonded to the silicon
atom. . . . The modifiers used in the present invention cannot
contain hydrogen, chlorine, bromine and iodine. Accordingly,
the present invention has identified a sub-class of silicon
modifiers that are particularly useful for achieving polymer
resins with simultaneously high density and high long chain
branching.
(Br. 13.)
We are not persuaded by this argument. We agree with Appellants
that Chien discloses a broad class of silicon compounds that can be used as
its electron donor. However, as pointed out by the Examiner, Chien, at
column 5, lines 47-51, describes examples of useful silicon compounds that
are “within the scope of silane modifiers of [claim 14]” (Answer 9). The
Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that it would have been obvious to
select any one of these exemplified silicon compounds as the electron donor.
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claims 14 and 28 would have been obvious over Winslow in view of Chien,
which Appellants have not rebutted. We therefore affirm the rejection of
claims 14 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 15-25, 27, and 29-42 fall
with claims 14 and 28.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013