Appeal No. 1999-1418
Application No. 08/418,847
we determine that only the section 103 rejection of claims 5,
6 and 11-16 should be sustained.
Concerning the section 112 rejection, the examiner urges
that “[t]he bridge ‘ethylene-ethylene’ would appear to refer
to a bridge of the structure ‘-(CH ) ' which is not a species
2 4-
of the metallocenes of Formula (I) on page 2 of the
specification” (answer, page 3). However, we cannot agree
with the manner in which the examiner has interpreted the
claim 23 phrase “ethylene-ethylene” since this interpretation
plainly is inconsistent with the appellants’ specification
disclosure. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Instead, we agree with the appellants’
basic position that one with ordinary skill in the art would
interpret this claimed phrase consistent with the
specification disclosure (e.g., see Example 29 and compare
Example 8 of the specification) as referring to “ethyl-
ethylene.” As so interpreted, appealed claims 23 and 24
indisputably define a metallocene which is supported, that is
disclosed, in the subject specification. It follows that we
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007