Appeal No. 2002-0681
Application No. 09/353,207
that Fowler teaches or would have suggested the claimed continual
mixing2 until an essentially completely activated precursor is
formed prior to introducing it into a polymerization reactor. In
this regard, we observe that the examiner has not explained, much
less proffered evidence, to show why the mere addition of an
additional activator to a slurry containing partially activated
precursor would constitute a suggestion to continually mix and
form an essentially completely activated precursor in the slurry
before that slurry is introduced into a polymerization reactor.
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992)(“the examiner bears the initial burden, on review of
the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie
case of unpatentability”); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(the examiner must explain why
the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the desirability of the modification).
2 According to page 12 of the specification, the claimed
continual mixing is carried out with a mixing device, such as a static
mixer, until essentially complete activation of the partially
activated precursor is accomplished prior to introducing it into a
polymerization reaction.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007