Appeal No. 1999-1833 10
Application No. 08/480,728
other electron donors, other olefins, a greater mole ratio of lithium compound to transition
metal or a change in the conditions of reaction.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, and
having evaluated the prima facie case of obviousness in view of appellants arguments and
evidence, we conclude that the preponderance of evidence weighs in favor of obviousness
of the claimed subject matter within the meaning of § 103. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Claim 33
As to claim 33 directed to lithium indene, neither of the remaining references to
Kioka nor Raich disclose the addition of lithium indene to a Ziegler catalyst. Accordingly,
with respect to claim 33 no prima facie case of obviousness has been established.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 18 through 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kioka in view of Raich is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kioka in view of Bohmer, Kataoka, Numao and Raich is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007