Appeal No. 2001-0172
Application 08/932,771
have improved properties over one of the polymers or interpolymers alone, as shown by Stevens
‘815 with ethylene based polymers produced with CG catalyst compositions and other polymers,
and by Stehling and Ewen with ethylene based polymers prepared with metallocene catalyst
compositions. Thus, prima facie, this person would have found in the combined teaching of
Stehling and Stevens ‘815 and of Stehling, Stevens ‘815 and Ewen, the reasonable suggestion to
form blends of the ethylene based polymers and interpolymers prepared with CG catalyst
compositions having different reactivity disclosed in Steven ‘815 by modifying the processes of
Stevens ‘815 to include a step or steps of combining or recovering ethylene based polymers and
interpolymers selected to improve the properties of the polymer and interpolymer products by (1)
mixing prepared polymers and interpolymers and/or (2) preparing at least two polymers and
interpolymers in a common reactor, as known in the art as evinced by Stehling and Ewen, with
Ewen showing that the reactivity ratio of the catalysts can control the blend formed, in the
reasonable expectation of obtaining useful blends of the polymers and interpolymers taught by
Stevens ‘815.
However, with respect to the second difference, we find that the examiner has not
established on this record that the interpolymers that one of ordinary skill in this art would have
routinely prepared with the CG catalyst compositions of Stevens ‘815 would have the physical
properties required by appealed claims 1 and 21, or that one of ordinary skill in this art routinely
following the teachings of Stevens ‘815 would have been led to employ process conditions set
forth in this reference which would have led to interpolymers having the requisite properties
(answer, page 8, lines 4-12).
On this record, we therefore agree with appellants (brief, pages 6-7 and 12; reply brief,
page 3) that the examiner has not made out a prima facie case of obviousness in either ground of
rejection.
The decision that we reach here is not contrary to the position this panel has taken in
related Appeal No. 2000-1547 in application 08/950,491 (Paper No. 28), decided concurrently
here, in which we affirmed the grounds of rejection of the appealed claims drawn to processes for
preparing “an ethylene polymer product,” “an ethylene/alpha-olefin terpolymer product” and “an
ethylene/alpha-olefin/diene interpolymer product” utilizing at least two of the same CG catalyst
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007