Appeal No. 2000-1031
Application No. 08/591,330
Mw/Mn > (I10/I2) - 4.63
While the examiner is correct in finding (answer, page 4)
that there is a substantial overlap between “I10/I2 ≥ 5.63”
(Hughes) and “I10/I2 < 6.53” (appealed claim 1), there is no
overlap between “Mw/Mn ≤ (I10/I2) - 4.63” (Hughes) and “Mw/Mn >
(I10/I2) - 4.63” (appealed claim 1). That is, while the Mw/Mn
value of the polymer in Hughes is less than or equal to “(I10/I2)
- 4.63,” the Mw/Mn value of the polymer recited in appealed claim
1 is greater than “(I10/I2) - 4.63.” As explained in the present
specification (page 7, lines 15-29; page 8, lines 3-5; page 9;
lines 21-28), the metallocene catalyzed polymer disclosed in
Hughes and the metallocene polyethylene recited in appealed
claim 1 are mutually exclusive.3
The examiner argues that an Mw/Mn value of 1.5, which is
described as a preferred endpoint in Hughes, anticipates the
claimed range. This argument is misplaced. While appealed
claim 1 may encompass an Mw/Mn value of 1.5, this fact alone is
not dispositive. As we noted above, appealed claim 1 requires
two parameters to be satisfied. To illustrate, a polymer having
an I10/I2 of 6.15, for example, and a Mw/Mn of 1.5 satisfies the
3 In this regard, we find it significant that the
appellants attempted to distinguish over Hughes by amending
claim 1 to avoid the rejections based on the teachings of
Hughes. (Amendment filed Dec. 8, 1997, paper 8.)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007