EWEN V. DOLLE et al. - Page 26




          Interference 103,482                                                        
          necessary to determine the average sequence length through                  
          conventional means known in the art” (Paper No. 60, p. 12,                  
          second full para.); (2) found that “Ewen has not asserted that              
          one having ordinary skill in the   art would not be able to                 
          determine the average length of the syndiotactic and isotactic              
          sequences of polymers made according to the process set out in              
          Dolle’s claims” (Paper No. 60, p. 12, second full para.); and               
          (3) concluded that “the specification preferably omits . . .                
          that which is well known in the art” (Paper No. 60, p. 12,                  
          second full para.).                                                         
               Finally, the APJ denied Ewen’s motion for judgment of                  
          unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103 over U.S. Patent               
          4,892,851 or Ewen JACS because (Paper No. 60, p. 13):                       
               Neither reference describes or suggests a process for                  
               forming polymers where the average sequence length for                 
               both the syndiotactic and isotactic sequences is at                    
               least 3 and no more than 50.  The fact that some triad                 
               or even pentad meso sequences are present in the                       
               syndiotactic polymers described by the references is                   
               an insufficient basis to find that the average sequence                
               length for both types of sequence [sic] falls in the                   
               range of 3 to 50 monomers.                                             
               EE. June 30, 1998 -- The APJ entered Decision On Ewen                  
          Responsive Motion No. 4 Under 37 CFR § 1.633(f),(j) And 35                  
          U.S.C. 120 (Paper 22)(Paper No. 61).  The APJ denied Ewen’s                 
          motion to be accorded benefit of the July 15, 1988, filing                  

                                         26                                           





Page:  Previous  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007