Appeal No. 2001-0968
Application No. 08/894,423
to the absence of chemical or physical treatment of Dietz's
support.
The limitations of claims 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are
covered by our discussions above.
Werner Combined with Dietz and Noristi
Claims 1 through 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Werner,
Dietz, and U.S. Patent 5,244,854 to Noristi issued on Sep. 14,
1993 and already made of record.
We refer to our factual findings above with respect to the
teachings of Werner and Dietz.
Werner does not teach the use of an aromatic or halogenated
hydrocarbon solvent and does not state that the inorganic oxide
support has surface hydroxyl groups. Regarding the surface
hydroxyl groups, we note that the appellants have withdrawn their
argument that Werner does not disclose or suggest silica having
surface hydroxyl groups.2 (Reply brief, pages 1-2.) On this point, we further note
that metal oxide supports with surface hydroxyl groups and chemically uncombined water are
commonly used in the preparation of catalyst components that are similar to those described by
Werner. (Noristi, column 3, lines 7-34, 58-68.)
Regarding the solvent, we again emphasize that the appealed claims do not require the
contact of the titanium compound with the specified organic solvent, i.e. the aromatic
hydrocarbon or halogenated hydrocarbon. Here, the appellants have not pointed to any evidence
in the record to establish that the use of an aromatic hydrocarbon or halogenated hydrocarbon
solvent, relative to an alkane, would lead to a structurally different catalyst.
Even assuming that the use of the recited solvents imparts a structural difference, Werner
teaches that the solvent may be any solvent commonly used for Ziegler-Natta catalyst, provided
that it does not damage the catalyst. (Page 9.) Also, Dietz teaches the preparation of a similar
Ziegler-Natta catalyst in which an aromatic hydrocarbon (e.g., benzene or toluene) and alkanes
are taught as interchangeable solvents. (Column 3, lines 2-7.) Accordingly, one of ordinary skill
in the art would have found it prima facie obvious to replace the alkanes of Werner with benzene
or toluene, thus arriving at a catalyst within appealed claims 1 and 12 or a process within
appealed claim 9, with the reasonable expectation that these solvents would provide substantially
similar results relative to alkanes as suggested by Dietz.
With respect to claim 2, the reasons given above in the rejection based on Dietz alone
apply equally here. Moreover, Noristi teaches that the presence of chemically uncombined water
is preferred in the preparation of catalysts that are similar to those described in Werner. (Column
3, lines 65-68.)
The limitations recited in claims 3 and 4 are taught by Werner.
As to claim 5, Noristi teaches that the recited ethers are electron donors for catalysts that
are similar to those of Werner. (Column 5, lines 37-66.) Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have found it prima facie obvious to use the ethers described in Noristi in the
preparation of the solid catalyst component described in Werner, with the reasonable expectation
that an ether would provide substantially the same results as the phthalate described in Werner.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007