Appeal No. 95-2683
Application No. 07/883,912
appellants claim priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 and 35 U.S.C.
§ 119, respectively. For instance, the examiner explains that
coordination catalysts "were known to be able to be formed
from titanium chloride and a Group I alkyl compound or an
elemental non-transition metal such as aluminum or lithium"
(page 4 of Answer), and the applications upon which appellants
base priority do not disclose that the catalysts of the
present invention are formed from such materials. Also, the
examiner points out that there is no evidence of record which
establishes that the catalyst compositions described in the
original applications were known by those skilled in the art
as "coordination catalysts." On the other hand, our review of
appellants' principal and Reply Briefs reveals that appellants
have not advanced any substantive argument that rebuts the
examiner's position. Indeed, appellants' principal and Reply
Briefs present no argument that the claim language
"coordination catalyst" is described in the applications upon
which priority is based. Consequently, we will sustain the
examiner's rejection.
Although appellants have presented no substantive
arguments refuting the rejection discussed above, appellants
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007