Ex parte NATTA et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 95-2683                                                          
          Application No. 07/883,912                                                  


                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 11-               
          17, all the claims remaining in the present application.                    
          Claim 11 is illustrative:                                                   
               11.  A process which comprises interpolymerizing ethylene              
          with an alpha olefin CHR=CH  wherein R is a saturated                       
                                     2                                                
          aliphatic radical with 2 or more carbon atoms or a                          
          cycloaliphatic radical, in the presence of a coordination                   
          catalyst, one component of which contains a Ti-Cl bond.                     
               In the rejection of the appealed claims, the examiner                  
          relies upon the following references:                                       
          Anderson et al. (Anderson)         2,905,645        Sep. 22, 1959           
          Vandenberg                         3,058,963        Oct. 16, 1962           
               Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a process                 
          for interpolymerizing ethylene and an alpha olefin of the                   
          recited formula in the presence of a coordination catalyst                  
          having a component containing a Ti-Cl bond.                                 
               Appellants submit at page 2 of the principal Brief that                
          "[t]he claims are not grouped separately."  Accordingly, all                
          the appealed claims stand or fall together as they are grouped              
          by the examiner in different rejections.                                    
               Claims 11 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,                 
          first paragraph, as being based upon an original specification              
          that does not provide descriptive support for the claim                     
                                         -3-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007