Interference 103,482
polymers, Miya does not anticipate the subject
matter
of Ewen’s claims 1 to 3 and 5 to 7.
52. The difference between the compounds described by
Miya
and those claimed in claims 1-3 and 5-7 of Ewen 034
is
that Miya does not teach the formation of
hemiisotactic
polymers.
53. Miya does not suggest and provides no basis for
inferring that any of the metallocene compounds
disclosed in the patent, including those covered
by Ewen’s general formula, could or would make
hemiisotactic compounds [sic, polymers].
The APJ noted (Paper No. 52, p. 10, first full para.):
Ewen urges that the formation of hemiisotactic polymers
is a
claim limitation and a difference distinguishing the
claimed
compounds from those described by Miya. Ewen Opposition
No. 1 to Dolle Motion for Judgment (Paper 29), p. 3.
Consistent therewith, the APJ found (Paper No. 52, p. 11,
first full para.; emphasis added; footnote omitted):
A review of the Ewen 034 specification indicates
that
the language “to produce hemiisotactic olefin polymers”
is
a necessary limiting property of the metallocene
compounds
which serves to distinguish the claimed compounds from
other
cyclopentadienyl compounds which fall within the general
formula set out in the Ewen 034 claims. Ewen notes that
no special polymerization conditions are necessary to
form
hemiisotactic polymers using these compounds and that any
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007