Interference 103,482
U.S. Patent 4,892,851, reasonably would have suggested that
metallocene catalysts of the same general formula “in which
one Cp ring is substituted in a substantially different manner
so as to be sterically different” (Ewen et al., U.S. Patent
4,892,851, col. 13, l. 63-65) would be useful for preparing
highly crystalline syndiotactic polyolefins, the same
disclosure reasonably would have led persons having ordinary
skill in the art to expect “similar results” (Ewen et al.,
U.S. Patent 4,892,851, col. 13, l. 67) as those achieved using
the unsubstituted metallocene catalysts Ewen et al.
exemplified when using a substituted metallocene catalyst of
the same general formula “in which one Cp ring is substituted
in a substantially different manner so as to be sterically
different” (Ewen et al., U.S. Patent 4,892,851, col. 13, l.
59, to col. 14, l. 5). To the contrary, both Dolle
Application 08/147,006 and Ewen, U.S. Patent 5,036,034,
describe metallocene catalysts useful for production of
amorphous or partly crystalline syndio-isoblock and
noncrystalline hemiisotactic polymers. Ewen has not shown
that the subject matter Dolle claims, and Dolle has not shown
that the subject matter Ewen claims, would have been obvious
to a person having ordinary skill in the art under 35 U.S.C. §
125
Page: Previous 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007