Interference No. 103,303
As regards Count 2, one skilled in the art
reading Asanuma claim 16 would look to Example 3 for
guidance in preparing propylene/1-butene copolymers
having a low mole percent butene. But Example 3 is
not "specific." It omits many necessary details
that one skilled [in the] art would need to know in
order to truly and reproducibly repeat it. Because
of these omissions, one skilled in the art would
have to make a number of reasonable assumptions in
order to even try to "repeat" the example. Dr.
Galimberti made reasonable assumptions, and the
copolymer he obtained showed a xylene solubility of
59%. (Galimberti patent claim 1 requires a xylene
solubility of less than 10%.)
On pages 31 and 32 of its main brief, the party
Galimberti
et al. states:
As previously demonstrated, the Asanuma appli-
cation does not establish that it "possessed" the
Galimberti copolymers. The same is true as regards
the Galimberti process as set out in Galimberti
patent claim 2. Asanuma has admitted the processes
are different. [Citation omitted.] Interestingly,
Asanuma made no attempt to oppose Galimberti's EPO
counterpart patent (GR 147.)
The Asanuma application process does not provide
a continuous feed of a gaseous mixture of reactants,
as called for in Galimberti claim 2. [Citation
omitted.] The Asanuma process does not maintain the
composition of a gaseous mixture of reactants at a
constant ratio, as called for in Galimberti claim 2.
[Citation omitted.] There is no possibility that a
constant ratio could be achieved by Asanuma because
its examples disclose the feeding of comonomer only
at the state of the reaction. [Citation omitted.]
The process allegedly adopted in the Asanuma
repeats of application Example 3 is intricate,
complex, and most significantly, is in no way
-23-
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007