Appeal No. 1999-0905 5
Application No. 08/504,319
THE REJECTION
Claims 2 through 13 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Waymouth.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner, and agree with the appellants that the rejection of the claims under
§ 103(a) is not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any
other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability,” whether on the
grounds of anticipation or obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On the record before us, the examiner relies
upon a reference to Waymouth to reject the claimed subject matter and establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. The basic premise of the rejection is that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, “to arrive at appellants’ claimed processes
because such embodiments fall with the scope of the prior art disclosure.” See Answer,
page 5. We disagree with the examiner’s conclusion.
We find that Waymouth is directed to a new class of metallocene catalysts and
methods of polymerization utilizing the catalysts to produce a wide range of olefin
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007