Appeal No. 1997-3908
Application 08/174,997
in the preparation of that component (col. 11, lines 47-55).
Thus, the electron donor is an internal electron donor.
Fujita then mixes solid catalyst component (A) with an
organoaluminum compound, component (B) (col. 2, lines 34-37),
but does not disclose adding an external electron donor.
The examiner argues that it does not matter whether an
electron donor is called an internal or external electron
donor (answer, page 8). The examiner apparently is arguing
that an internal electron donor can perform the function of an
external electron donor. The examiner, however, has provided
no evidence or technical reasoning in support of this
argument. The examiner has provided mere speculation, and
such speculation is not a sufficient basis for a prima facie
case of obviousness. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017,
154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057
(1968); In re Sporck, 301 F.2d 686, 690, 133 USPQ 360, 364
(CCPA 1962).
The examiner argues that Fujita’s organosilicon compound
can be used as either an internal electron donor or an
external electron donor (answer, page 8). In support of this
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007