Interference 103,482
Party Ewen does not allege that the APJ applied the wrong
legal standard. Rather, Ewen argues that Ewen et al.,
Application 07/220,007 (hereafter Ewen et al., U.S. Patent
4,892,851), does
in fact provide a written description of (1) the formation of
either a syndio-isoblock polymer having molecular chains in
which syndiotactic and isotactic sequences are present and the
sequence length is 3 to 50 monomer units or a hemiisotactic
olefin polymer, and/or (2) a metallocene compound defined by
the count, as required by the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
112 (Ewen Brief, pp. 46-52).
Based primarily on the testimony of Dr. Scott (RE 1-9),
Ewen proffers “one possibility” that the syndio-isoblock
polymer having molecular chains in which syndiotactic and
isotactic sequences are present and the sequence length is 3
to 50 monomer units defined by Count 2 reads on “a
syndiotactic polymer having site control mistakes which
results [sic] in isotactic sequences of three monomer units”
(Ewen Brief, p. 48). We hereinabove interpreted the same
language in Dolle’s claims which correspond to Count 2 as
excluding known syndiotactic, highly isotactic, or isotactic-
stereoblock polymers having site control mistakes of three
115
Page: Previous 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007