Appeal No. 95-1959
Application 07/894,128
Specifically, the examiner found that in light of the art
recognition that the support's characteristics affect the
characteristics of the polymers it is necessary to know the
exact nature of the support used in any comparative run.
Additionally, the examiner found that the skilled routineer
would have expected certain catalysts within the scope of
Claim 6 to produce atactic polypropylenes while other
catalysts also within the scope of Claim 6 would have been
expected to yield crystalline polypropylene. Appellants have
not rebutted or even challenged these findings by the
examiner. We, therefore, accept them as true.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is
AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
17
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007