Interference No. 103,303
We do not agree with the party Galimberti et al. that its
claimed copolymers are made by a different process than the
party Asanuma et al.'s polymers for the reasons set forth in
our discussion with respect to count 2, infra.
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the party
Galimberti et al. has not sustained its burden of proof with
respect to count 1.
Interference-in-fact as to Count 2
We now turn to the question of whether an interference-
in-fact exists as to count 2, i.e., is Galimberti et al.'s
claim 2 new and nonobvious over Asanuma et al.'s claim 16,
assuming that Asanuma et al.'s claim 16 is prior art with
respect to Galimberti et al.'s claim 2.
Galimberti et al.'s claim 2 reads as follows:
2. A process for the preparation of the copolymers of
claim 1 comprising the polymerization of gaseous mixtures of
propylene and 1-butene with catalysts obtained from isopropyl
(cyclopentadienyl-1-fluorenyl) hafninum or zirconium
dichloride and polymethylaluminoxane cyclic or linear
compounds of the formula
(A1-O)n
*
CH
3
where n is a number from 2 to 25 and
CH )(A1)O) A1(CH )
3 n 3 2
3*
CH
3
-20-
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007