Interference 103,482
No. 15), filed May 11, 1995, are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, because the phrase “a 1-olefin of the
formula RCH=CHR’ in which R and R’ are identical or different
and are an alkyl radical having 1 to 14 carbon atoms” in
independent Claim 4 is indefinite (Paper No. 53, p. 2).
X. June 30, 1998 -- The APJ entered Decision On Dolle’s
§ 1.633(c) Motion To Redefine Interfering Subject Matter
(Paper 15)(Paper No. 54). The APJ (1) denied Dolle’s motion
to substitute proposed Count 2 (Paper No. 54, p. 2); (2)
granted Dolle’s motion to substitute proposed Count 3 (Paper
No. 54,
pp. 2-3, bridging para.); (3) granted Dolle’s motion to amend
Claims 4, 16, 19 and 23 (Paper No. 54, pp. 3-5); and (4)
granted Dolle’s motion to enter new Claims 27-30 which were2
designated as corresponding to the substitute count (Paper No.
54, p. 5, last para.). However, the APJ held new Claims 27-30
to be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the
2 Claims 27-30 are directed to “[a] metallocene
comprising a compound of the formula I” (Paper No. 54, pp. 6-7,
Claim 27), “[a] metallocene catalyst comprising of a metallocene
and an aluminoxane, wherein the metallocene is a compound of the
formula I” (Paper No. 54, pp. 7-8, Claim 28), “[t]he metallocene
as claimed in claim 27" (Paper No. 54, p. 8, Claim 29), and “[t]he
catalyst as claimed in claim 28" (Paper No. 54, p. 8, Claim 30).
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007