Appeal No. 1999-1832
Application No. 08/474,233
appellants argue that Mao is the closest prior art (brief,
page 6). Even if the appellants are correct in this regard, the
record does not indicate that the appellants have compared the
claimed process to that of Mao. The appellants state that they
have compared the claimed process to a process in which another
commercially available Ziegler-Natta catalyst component is
substituted for that used in the appellants’ examples
(specification, page 18, lines 17-19). The appellants state that
the catalyst in the comparative examples was believed to be
prepared with the materials and processes disclosed in three
patents and is sold by Toho Titanium, Inc. under the trade name
“THC-32A” (specification, page 15, lines 5-8), but the appellants
do not disclose the composition of the catalyst. Regardless, the
appellants’ claimed process differs from that of Mao only in the
use of an electron donor which falls within the scope of Mao’s
generic organosilicon compound formula but is not specifically
disclosed in that reference. Hence, the proper comparison would
be between the claimed process and Mao’s examples wherein Mao’s
organosilicon compound is used. The appellants have not provided
such a comparison.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007