Interference No. 104,785
Page No. 4
III. Goodall’s Claimed Addition Polymers and Takechi’s Claimed ROMP Polymers are
Patentably Distinct Inventions
As mentioned above, Goodall’s amended claims are directed to polymers formed via an
addition reaction whereas Takechi’s claimed polymers are formed via a ROMP process. As
recognized by the prior art, the polymers formed by an addition process differ structurally from
those formed via the ROMP process. Moreover, the prior art recognizes that the addition
polymers and ROMP polymers possess different physical properties. For example, Goodall et
al., U.S. Patent No. 5,569,730 specifically states that:
A ROMP polymer has a different structure compared with that of the addition
polymer in that (i) the ROMP polymer of one or more NB-type monomers,
contains a repeat unit with one less cyclic unit than did the starting monomer, and,
(ii) these are linked together in an unsaturated backbone characteristic of a ROMP
polymer and is shown below. [Drawing Omitted]
It will now be evident that, despite being formed from the same monomer, an
addition-polymerized polyNB is clearly distinguishable over a ROMP polymer.
Because of the different (addition) mechanism, the repeating unit of the former
has no backbone C=C unsaturation as shown below: [Drawing Omitted]
The difference in structures of ROMP and addition polymers of NB-functional
monomers is evidenced in their properties, e.g., thermal properties. The addition
type polymer of NB has a high Tg of about 370oC. The unsaturated ROMP
polymer of NB exhibits a Tg of about 35oC., and exhibits poor thermal stability at
high temperature above 200oC. because of its high degree of C=C unsaturation.
(Col. 1, line 50 to col. 2, line 13). As ROMP and addition polymers differ both in structure and
in the physical properties, the parties’ proposed amended claims would no longer interfere-in-
fact.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007