Page 3
U.S.C.
§ 103 is not well founded. Accordingly, we do not sustain this rejection.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any
other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability,” whether on the
grounds of anticipation or obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On the record before us, the examiner
relies upon a combination of four references to reject the claimed subject matter
and establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Although we are satisfied that the references of record either alone or in
combination disclose steps (1) through (5) of the claimed subject matter, we determine
that step (6), “separating the washed solid from the hydrocarbon wash liquid so as to
yield solid particulate catalyst” is neither disclosed nor suggested by the references
of record.
It is the examiner’s position that the washing and separating steps are disclosed by
Capshew in Examples V and VI at column 20, lines 50-52, and column 21, lines 34-
35. See Answer, page 4. However, Example V introduces a washing step in the
absence of treatment with titanium tetrachloride and prior to reduction with triethyl
aluminum reducing agent. Example VI similarly discloses a washing step after treatment
with titanium tetrachloride but prior to any treatment or contact with triethyl aluminum
reducing agent.
In each example, in the Capshew reference, when a polymerization catalyst is added
to the reactor together with the triethyl aluminum cocatalyst and isobutane diluent,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007