Appeal No. 1997-1750
Application No. 08/524,024
Appellants also maintain that "Kerth fails to disclose
that incorporation of the catalyst into a process for
producing propylene-ethylene copolymers would aid in
preparation of such copolymers" (sentence bridging pages 5 and
6 of principal brief). We must admit that we don't quite
understand this argument inasmuch as Kerth expressly teaches
specific advantages resulting from utilizing the disclosed
catalyst in a process for producing copolymers of propene and
lower alkyl monoolefins such as ethylene (column 1, lines 10-
13).
Appellants rely upon a Declaration by Dr. Schwager, one
of the present inventors, as evidence of nonobviousness.
According to appellants, the Declaration clearly shows that
the process of the present invention, compared to the process
of Toyota, "yields propylene-ethylene copolymers having a
reduced content of fine and big rough particles, meaning that
the copolymers have a homogeneous size distribution" (page 7
of principal brief). In addition, the Declaration shows that
the process of the present invention "may be carried out for a
longer period before it must be stopped for a reactor
shutdown" (page 7 of principal brief). Also, "[t]he polymers
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007