Appeal No. 1997-3234
Application 08/040,671
recited process, and also claim the process. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reads as follows:
1. A supported polymerization catalyst, which is prepared
by reacting a reaction product formed from an aluminoxane and at
least one metallocene with a microporous, polymeric support
wherein the microporous, polymeric support has a pore volume of
at least 50% by volume, based on the total volume of the support
material.
THE REFERENCE
Kioka et al. (EP ‘312) 0 295 312 Dec. 21, 1988
(European patent application)
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 13, 14, 16-22, 24-26 and 28 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over EP ‘312.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced
by appellants and the examiner and agree with the examiner that
the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention over the
applied prior art. Accordingly, we affirm the aforementioned
rejection.
Appellants state (brief, page 4) that the claims stand or
fall in three groups: 1) claims 1, 3-5, 8, 13, 14 and 16-22,
2) claims 24, 26 and 28, and 3) claim 25. We therefore limit our
discussion to one claim in each group, i.e., claims 1, 25 and 28.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007