Appeal No. 1999-1418
Application No. 08/418,847
unexpected results under a variety of parameter conditions
including some of those listed by the examiner such as
differing metallocene concentrations and differing olefin
monomers (again see specification Examples 9 and 10 in
conjunction with the Dolle declaration executed September 8,
1995). These circumstances lead us to conclude that the
evidence before us on this appeal for and against obviousness,
on balance, weighs most heavily in favor of a nonobviousness
conclusion with respect to appealed claims 25 and 26.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s section 103
rejection of claims 5, 6 and 11-16 but not his section 103
rejection of claims 23-26. We also have not sustained the
examiner’s 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 23 and
24.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007