Interference 103,482
interpretation, which we hereby adopt, is consistent with
Ewen’s own interpretation of the scope of claims which contain
comparable language in Ewen, U.S. 5,036,034 (Ewen Opposition
No. 1 To Dolle Motion For Judgment)(Paper No. 29)(APJ Decision
On Dolle Motion For Judgment Pursuant To 37 CFR § 1.633(a)
(Paper 14)(Paper No. 52)). Dolle asked the APJ to hold Ewen’s
claimed “metallocene compound used to make a catalyst to
produce hemiisotactic olefin polymers comprising the general
formula R”(CpR )(CpR’ )MHal " (Ewen, U.S. 5,036,034, Claim 1)
n m 2
unpatentable over metallocene compounds generally described in
Miya, U.S. Patent 4,931,417 (Appendix B), and/or Klouras.
Ewen argued (Paper No. 29, p. 3):
What the party Dolle has done in its attempt to show
anticipation, is to simply ignore very important
limitations
found in independent claims 1 and 5 of the Ewen patent.
Thus, independent claim 1 calls for a metallocene
compound
“used to make a catalyst to produce hemiisotactic olefin
polymers ....” . . . . The party Dolle’s analysis of the
Ewen claims and the prior art references completely
ignores
[sic] these claim limitations . . . .
Ewen cited the following statement from Dr. Atwood’s
declaration (Paper No. 29, p. 4):
[W]hile the Miya patent discloses many metallocene
compounds, both bridged and unbridged, some of which are
shown to be effective in producing isotactic
polypropylene
89
Page: Previous 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007