Appeal No. 1999-1832
Application No. 08/474,233
appellants assert that this rejection is unsupported by case law
and is inconsistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112
(brief, page 9), but do not provide a substantive argument in
response to the rejection. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The appellants indicate that their invention is the use of
the electron donor recited in their claims as the electron donor
in Mao’s process (specification, page 5, lines 8-11; page 15,
lines 3-4). Mao’s electron donor is an organosilicon compound
having a general formula (col. 5, lines 39-44) which encompasses
that in the appellants’ claims, but Mao does not disclose that
the group which corresponds to the appellants’ R4 can have a
secondary or tertiary carbon atom attached to the silicon atom as
recited in the appellants’ claim 14, and does not disclose that
the electron donor can be dicyclopentyldimethoxysilane as recited
in the appellants’ claim 20.
Ishimaru discloses “[a]n olefin polymerization catalyst
formed from (A) a solid titanium catalyst component containing
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007