Appeal No. 1998-2636
Application No. 08/534,961
In light of the foregoing, we are convinced that an
artisan would have combined the polyolefin-stabilizer of
Mathis with the deactivated catalyst containing polyolefin of
Turner based upon a reasonable expectation of success. In re
O’Farrell, id.
A contrary conclusion is not supported by the Staniek
declaration for a number of reasons. In the first place, the
declaration does not address the active versus inactive
catalyst issue discussed above and indeed appears to be
limited to a polypropylene which contains active third
generation catalyst. It follows that appealed independent
claim 1, which encompasses active as well as inactive
catalysts, is much broader in scope than the Staniek
declaration.
Analogously, this claim encompasses all forms of
polyolefin and all forms of Generation II, III, IV, and V
catalyst and therfore is much broader in scope than the
declaration which is limited only to polypropylene as a
polyolefin and to a specific third generation catalyst.
Additionally, the independent claim on appeal encompasses a
wide variety of compounds in the claimed definition of
component a) whereas the declaration tests only two compounds
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007