Appeal No. 1998-2636
Application No. 08/534,961
consideration which, in the absence of catalyst deactivation
or catalyst residue removal, may positively or negatively
affect the results of adding a stabilizer to a polymer
containing such catalyst components (e.g., see the second
paragraph on page 195). Contrary to the appellant’s apparent
belief, however, this teaching supports a conclusion of
obviousness rather than nonobviousness. This is because the
aforementioned teaching suggests that potential interactions
between stabilizers and catalyst components would not be a
concern under conditions wherein the catalysts have been
deactivated. It is here appropriate to emphasize that Turner
explicitly teaches deactivating the catalyst in his polyolefin
(e.g., see line 63 in column 7 through line 1 in column 8).
In this regard, it is also important to emphasize that the
independent claim on appeal encompasses polyolefin which
contains catalyst in either an active or inactive state as
evinced by lines 1-17, especially lines 12-17 on page 14 of
the subject specification. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548,
218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (claims are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification and should be read in light of the
specification).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007