Interference 103,482
4. Dolle’s contentions
Consistent with the above, we find that the highly
crystalline syndiotactic polymers described in Ewen et al,
U.S. 4,892,851, and processes and/or metallocene catalysts
useful for producing the highly crystalline syndiotactic
polymers described in Ewen et al, U.S. 4,892,851, do not
describe an amorphous or a partly crystalline syndio-isoblock
polymer described in Dolle Application 08/147,006, a process
and/or metallocene catalyst useful for producing an amorphous
or partly crystalline syndio-isoblock polymer described in
Dolle Application 08/147,006, a noncrystalline hemiisotactic
polymer described in Ewen, U.S. Patent 5,036,034, or a process
and/or metallocene catalyst useful for producing a
noncrystalline hemiisotactic polymer described in Ewen, U.S.
Patent 5,036,034. Moreover, we conclude that Ewen et al, U.S.
Patent 4,892,851, would not have suggested an invention
claimed in either Dolle Application 08/147,006 or Ewen, U.S.
Patent 5,036,034, to persons having ordinary skill in the art.
To the contrary, Ewen et al, U.S. Patent 4,892,851, describe
processes and metallocene catalysts useful for producing
highly crystalline syndiotactic polyolefins. While Ewen et
al.,
124
Page: Previous 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007