Appeal No. 1997-0186
Application No. 08/314,568
the presence of other substances. As a result, the
claimed catalyst fails to be patentably distinct
from that disclosed by EP 0,208,524.
Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have been inclined to eliminate the electron donor
compound from the process disclosed in EP '524 since the
electron donor contributes important properties to the
catalyst component produced thereby. Appellants also argue
that adding an electron donor compound to the claimed
invention would change the nature of the catalyst component.
Before we reach the obviousness issue, we must determine
the metes and bounds of claim 1. According to appellants
(Brief,
p. 2):
As most broadly defined in Claim 1 and described
at page 3, lines 17-24 of the pending application,
the catalyst component of the instant invention is
formed by: (1) initially reacting a metal oxide
support with an organomagnesium compound to form a
supported organomagnesium composition; (2) reacting
an organo- magnesium compound with a tetraalkyl
silicate; (3) contacting the resulting product with
a chlorinated reagent; and (4) contacting the
resulting product with a liquid titanium compound
containing halogen.
Appellants' arguments are consistent with the
specification. Namely, the specification does not contemplate
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007