Appeal No. 1998-2636
Application No. 08/534,961
We will sustain the examiner’s section 103 rejection for
the reasons set forth below.
Mathis discloses a polyolefinic composition which
comprises a polyolefin-stabilizing, phosphorous-containing
compound of the type here defined as component a) in
combination with a polyolefin albeit not the appellant’s
specifically claimed polyolefin defined as component b) of
appealed independent claim 1. That is, the polyolefin of
Mathis is not descrbied as having been produced in the
presence of a Generation II, III, IV, or V catalyst which has
not been removed. However, this last mentioned type of
polyolefin is disclosed by Turner who expressly teaches that
the catalyst is not removed from the polymer and that
antioxidants and other additives as are known in the art may
be added to the polymer (e.g., see the paragraph bridging
columns 7 and 8).
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious
for one with ordinary skill in the art to use the polyolefin-
stabilizing compound of Mathis in combination with the
catalyst-containing polyolefin of Turner particularly since
the latter expressly teaches adding to this polymer
antioxidants and other additives which are known in the art
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007