Interference 103,482
has adequately explained, how or why claimed compounds used
for making a catalyst for production of syndio-isoblock
polymers differ from compounds of the same formula useful to
make, or available for use in making, catalysts for production
of the same syndio-isoblock polymers.
More significant to our understanding of the metes and
bounds of the claimed metallocene compounds, and metallocene
catalysts comprising the same metallocene compounds, is the
extent to which the language “used to make a catalyst to
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” in Claims 32-35
further limits the scope of the metallocene compounds defined
by general
formula (I) in Dolle’s Claim 32. We hold, consistent with
the APJ’s earlier decisions (Paper No. 52, pp. 9-11; No. 54,
pp. 8-13; No. 55; No. 58; No. 60; No. 61, pp. 2-3; and No. 77,
pp. 6-7, bridging para.), that the claim language functionally
limits the scope of the claimed metallocene compounds having
the general formula (I) to those metallocene compounds of
general formula (I) which invariably catalyze production of
“syndio-isoblock polymers” as defined in Dolle’s Claim 32
87
Page: Previous 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007