Appeal No. 1997-2378
Application No. 08/233,533
Nowhere in the specification does it state that
the polypropylene of the invention has the
characteristics described by this claim [(claim 25)]
(except for the granulometric distribution).
Likewise, according to the examiner, the specification,
as originally filed, fails to describe the shape of the
polypropylene particles produced using polyhedron-shaped MgCl2
support particles as recited in claim 27 (Answer, p. 5):
[T]here is no support in the specification for the
subject matter of the phrase "reproducing [in a
homothetic manner the shape of the particles] of the
support".
Here, again, there is no use of this phrase or
any similar phrase to describe the polypropylene
produced by the claimed process. Further, there is
nothing in the process limitations that would
inherently require it to produce polypropylene
having the shape of the magnesium dichloride or
catalyst precursor.
Appellants rely on portions of the specification, an
article by Kang et al. and a DECLARATION UNDER 37 CFR 1.1322
2Kyung-Suk Kang et al., “Effect of Internal Lewis Bases on
Recrystallized MgCl -TiCl Catalysts for Polypropylene,” 40
2 4
Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 1303 (1990). This article
is of record in the application and is attached to the
AMENDMENT AFTER FINAL REJECTION (Paper No. 27). Although it
appears that this amendment was not entered by the examiner,
we note that the article was further relied upon by appellants
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007