Interference 103,482
R’ in the formula RCH=CHR’ are hydrogen. The
specification
also expressly mentions ethylene as an example of olefins
which may be polymerized. Dolle specification, p. 11,
lines 33-34. Absent evidence or reasoning providing a
basis to doubt the objective truth of the statements in
Dolle’s specification, those statements must be taken
as true and the disclosure enabling. . . . In re
Marzocchi,
439 F.2d 220, 223, 169 USPQ 367, 369 (CCPA 1971) . . . .
Ewen, however, has not presented any reasoning or
evidence
which provides a basis for doubting the objective truth
of the statements in Dolle’s specification. Nor has Ewen
provided reasoning or evidence indicating that Dolle’s
specification would not enable one having ordinary skill
in the art to polymerize ethylene or olefins that are not
1-olefins without undue experimentation.
In response to Ewen’s argument that new Claims 32-35
(Appendix D) are hybrid claims because they claim both a
product and a method in a single claim, the APJ, referring to
new
Claim 32, stated (Paper No. 77, pp. 6-7, bridging para.):
Dolle’s claim does not expressly combine two inventions
into a single claim. Rather, Dolle’s claimed invention
is expressly directed to a metallocene compound. In my
view, the language “used to make a catalyst to produce
syndio-isoblock polymers . . .” serves to further limit
the claimed metallocenes. . . . [T]he claim is similar
to a product by process claim where the reference to the
process may further characterize the product. To come
within the scope of Dolle’s claim 32, for example, the
metallocene must not only meet formula I but must only
“produce syndio-isoblock polymers having molecular chains
in which syndiotactic and isotactic sequences are present
and the sequence length is 3 to 50 monomer units by
polymerization of an olefin” of the specified formula.
Compounds which produce such polymers and also produce
34
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007