Appeal No. 1998-3182
Application No. 08/459,526
claimed catalyst (page 4 of answer, first full paragraph).
Although appellants maintain that Tsutsui is confusing and
internally inconsistent, we agree with the examiner that the
reference provides a fair teaching of the claimed catalyst
system. As pointed out by the examiner, Tsutsui, at column 5,
lines 36 et seq., clearly discloses a catalyst comprising [A] a
fine particle carrier, [B] an unbridged metallocene, [C] a
bridged metallocene and [D] an alumoxane. While Tsutsui teaches
that the catalyst undergoes olefin prepolymerization to form a
solid catalyst, it cannot be gainsaid that the catalyst described
by Tsutsui, at least before prepolymerization, meets the claimed
catalyst system. Since the components of the referenced catalyst
and the catalyst defined by claim 1 are the same, it logically
follows that the referenced catalyst would be effective in
preparing a polyolefin having at least a bimodal molecular weight
distribution. It is of no moment that the catalyst of Tsutsui is
used to form a prepolymerized olefin solid catalyst but not a
polyolefin having a bimodal molecular weight distribution. This
is the case because the claims presently on appeal define a
catalyst system, not a process or method of preparing a
polyolefin having at least bimodal molecular weight distribution.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007