Interference 103,482
under conventional polymerization conditions. Compare the
APJ’s interpretation of comparable claim language in Ewen,
U.S. 5,036,034 (Paper No. 52, p. 11, first full para.), with
the disclosure in Ewen, U.S. 5,036,034 (Appendix F), at column
5, line 65, to column 6, line 3, and column 9, lines 26-28.
The APJ consistently interpreted language in Dolle’s
Claim 32 which is substantially the same as that appearing in
Claim 1 of Ewen, U.S. 5,036,034, as follows (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
polymers that do not have the requisite average sequence
length due to the particular process conditions do not
meet
the express limitations of the claim. The construction
is consistent with Dolle’s specification. See Dolle
Specification, p. 3, lines 5-12.
Ewen has not explained why the APJ’s interpretation of the
language in Dolle’s claims is erroneous. The APJ’s
88
Page: Previous 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007