Appeal No. 1999-1679 5
Application No. 08/851,742
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The Rejection Over Scata in View of Job
It is the examiner’s position that,
[i]t would be obvious to use the process of Scata to homopolymerize ethylene or
for the copolymerization of ethylene and alpha-olefins to form copolymers having at
least 90 mole percent ethylene because (1) any Ziegler-type catalyst that will
polymerize alpha-olefins of 3 carbon atoms or more will inherently polymerize
ethylene, (2) the catalyst of Scata is described as forming copolymers of ethylene
and alpha-olefins i.e., it obviously can polymerize ethylene, (3) Job teaches that
another high activity magnesium halide supported titanium containing Ziegler-type
catalyst containing an electron donor may be used to homopolymerize ethylene or
propylene (column 2, line 63 to column 3, line 16, lines 28-31; column 6, lines
9-34) and (4) one of ordinary skill in the art would believe that the catalyst of
Scata would be suitable for polymerizing ethylene under the claimed conditions.
See Answer, pages 3 and 4. We disagree.
We find that Scata states that, “[t]he invention relates to the polymerisation of
alpha-olefins having at least three carbon atoms, using catalysts containing titanium
magnesium, aluminum and halogen.” See page 1, left-hand column, lines 10-14. We
further find that Scata discloses that, “[t]he alpha-olefins polymerized include propylene,
butene-1 and 4-methylpentene-1. Propylene and higher olefins may be copolymerized
with one another and/or with lower amounts of ethylene.” See page 2, right-hand
column, lines 83-87. We conclude that there is no suggestion or motivation to
homopolymerize ethylene or form a copolymer of ethylene having at least 90 mol.%
ethylene based on the teachings of Scata.
In contrast, Job is directed to the production of polymers and copolymers of lower
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007