Appeal No. 1999-1418
Application No. 08/418,847
ethylene bridge. This appealed subject matter is adequately
illustrated by independent claims 5, 6, 23 and 25, a copy of
which taken from the appellants’ brief is appended to this
decision.
The reference set forth below is relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness:
Winter et al. (Winter) 5,416,178 May 16, 1995
(effective filing date Aug. 4, 1988)
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under the first paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112 “because there is no support in the
specification for the metallocene of these claims” (answer,
page 3).
All of the claims on appeal are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Winter.
These appealed claims have been separately grouped and
argued by the appellants as indicated on page 5 of the brief.
Accordingly, in our assessment of the above noted rejections,
we have appropriately considered each of these separately
grouped and argued claims.
OPINION
Having carefully considered the argument and evidence
advanced by the appellants and by the examiner on this appeal,
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007