Appeal No. 96-0359
Serial No. 08/083,866
executed March 19, 1993) at pages 1-3). However, appellants have not shown that Bailey's
regression model is equally applicable to the experimental data in the examples of the specification. No
direct comparison has been made between a film made from the claimed ethylene blend and a film
made from Bailey's ethylene blend under identical manufacturing conditions. There is no showing that
the specification data was obtained under identical experimental conditions, etc. and, if not, what the
effects of any differences might be on the measured data. For example, Bailey used different load
amounts in obtaining his HLMI data. Moreover, appellants have not shown that any difference
between the "predicted" result and the "measured" result is an "unexpected" difference. Appellants have
the burden of explaining the data. Therefore, based on this record, we find appellants' arguments and
the Shirodkar I and II affidavits lack sufficient probative value to overcome this rejection.
Appellants argue Bailey fails to mention "elasticity" (Brief page 6). However, appellants have
not proferred the requisite objective evidence to establish that Bailey's ethylene blend and HMW
component do not have the claimed elasticity.
Appellants argue Bailey is not enabled for the production of HMW and LMW components
used to make his blends, especially in regard to claim 13 (Brief pages 6-8 and 11-16). Thus appellants
argue that Bailey does not describe the process limitations nor the product limitations therein (Brief
page 3; Reply Brief page 1).
Given Bailey's disclosure of using a high activity titanium/magnesium catalyst in conjunction with
an organoaluminum cocatalyst to produce the HMW or LMW polymer components (column 3, lines
Page 9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007