Interference 103,482
or atactic polypropylene, there is no disclosure in Miya
et al of metallocene catalysts effective in the
production
of hemiisotactic polypropylene . . . .
Ewen continued (Paper No. 29, pp. 6-7):
[T]he significance of the claim limitations disregarded
by the party Dolle in putting forth its motion, become
all the more apparent when one considers the file history
of the Ewen ‘034 patent. The claims in the Ewen
application
. . . were rejected on the grounds of obviousness type
double patenting in view of claims of [Ewen et al.,] U.S.
Patent No. 4,892,851 . . . . The claim limitations which
party Dolle has completely disregarded . . . played a
significant part in securing allowance . . . .8
Ewen previously argued (Paper No. 29, p. 8), and our
interpretation of the functional language of Dolle’s Claim 32
in-part is based on, the axiom that “[c]laims are to be read
and construed in light of the specification and the
prosecution history . . . .” ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp.,
8 During prosecution of the subject matter claimed in
U.S. 5,036,034, Ewen urged (Paper No. 29, p. 7):
There is no reference to or suggestion of hemiisotactic
polyolefins . . . in any claim of U.S. Patent No. . . .
4,892,851.
90
Page: Previous 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007