Interference 103,482
and Examples 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 of Ewen, U.S. Patent 4,522,982
(EE II)(RD 3-5). Also see the average syndiotactic and
isotactic sequence lengths for syndiotactic polypropylene
prepared and calculated by Dr. Spaleck (Declaration of Walter
Spaleck dated July 25, 1994 (RD 16)).
In rebuttal, Dr. Gauthier (Declaration of William J.
Gauthier dated September 28, 1998 (RE 26-34); Second
Declaration of William J. Gauthier dated November 19, 1998 (RE
35-46)) declared (RE 28; RE 38; emphasis added):
. . . I do not believe that the terms “isotactic sequence
length” and “syndiotactic sequence length,” as
characterized
in Section 3 of the Winter Declaration . . . and as
specifically defined in Equations (i) and (ii) thereof,
is what is conveyed by the Dolle et al patent
application.
Further, I do not believe that the construction placed
upon
the term “sequence length,” in the Decision on Ewen
Motion
for Judgment No. 1 . . . and the Decision on
Reconsideration
. . . based upon the Winter Declaration and the Randall
paper, is accurate.
In support of his beliefs, Dr. Gauthier states (RE 28; RE 38-
39)
(emphasis added):
. . . [W]hatever is intended by the use of the
term “sequence length” in the Dolle et al application,
it cannot be used to define separate isotactic and
syndiotactic sequence lengths following the Randall
publication and Winter’s Equations (i) and (ii). In
67
Page: Previous 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007