Appeal No. 1998-3272
Application 08/461,393
(e.g., col. 2, lines 30-45, and col. 3, line 22). Winter ‘178 further discloses that bridging group
“R3 is a linear C1-C4 . . . hydrocarbon radical or a cyclic C4-C6 hydrocarbon radical; these
hydrocarbon radicals can contain at least one heteroatom as a bridge unit in the chain,” and
exemplifies a number of “single-membered bridge units,” which include a number of “aryl” and
“aryl” containing hydrocarbyl groups as the R6 substituent, as well as hydrocarbyl groups
containing, inter alia, silicon, germanium, phosphorous, nitrogen, boron or aluminum atoms as
the bridge unit (e.g., col. 2, line 54, to col. 3, line 3). The reference also discloses a number of
“two-membered bridge units” having aryl containing R6, including R6 containing silicone groups
(e.g., col. 3, lines 4-6). Winter ‘178 also discloses that the “single-membered bridge units” can
include the non-hydrocarbyl containing bridges “-O-, -S-, -SO-” (col. 2, line 61). The central
transition metal atoms disclosed by this reference includes titanium and zirconium.
Thus, prima facie, the teachings of Ewen and Winter ‘178 establish that one of ordinary
skill in art would have used the bridging groups disclosed by Winter ‘178 as the bridging groups
in the bridge position of the metallocene compounds taught by Ewen which are of the same type
and used for the same purpose, and therefore, this person would have reasonably arrived at the
metallocene compounds of claims 23 and 36.
Accordingly, since a prima facie case of obviousness has been established by the
examiner over the substantial evidence in the combined teachings of Ewen, Winter ‘178,
Welborn and Kioka, we have again evaluated all of the evidence of obviousness and
nonobviousness based on the record as a whole, giving due consideration to the weight of
appellants’ arguments and the evidence in the declarations of record.7 See generally, In re
Johnson, 747 F.2d 1456, 1460, 223 USPQ 1260, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
correctly argue that these references do not apply in this respect (brief, pages 11-13).
7 Appellants point to the declarations by appellant Winter filed in this application on August 2,
1995 (Paper No. 4; Winter (I)), styled as directed to parent ‘558 application (see above note 1);
filed in this application on July 22, 1996 (Paper No. 11; Winter (II)), directed to related
application 08/462,110, now United States Patent No. 5,731,254; and filed in this application on
December 13, 1996 (Paper No. 15; Winter (III)). While appellants state that Winter (II) “is very
similar to” Winter (III) (brief, page 14), we agree with the examiner that Winter (III) and Winter
(II) are “identical except for the serial number of the application.” Thus, we consider only
Winter (I) and Winter (III), as has the examiner.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007