Ex Parte CHANG - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2002-0972                                                        
          Application 08/816,466                                                      


                                    THE INVENTION                                     
               The appellant claims a method for making a supported                   
          metallocene catalyst system.  Claim 1 is illustrative:                      
               1.   A method for forming a supported catalyst system                  
          comprising the steps of:                                                    
               (a) introducing a porous inorganic carrier to a vessel                 
          having a starting pressure,                                                 
               (b) depressurizing the vessel,                                         
               (c) introducing into the vessel a solution comprising a                
          metallocene catalyst component and an activator while maintaining           
          the depressurized pressure from step (b)                                    
               (d) pressurizing the vessel, and                                       
               (e) recovering the supported catalyst system,                          
               steps (a) and (b) are performed before step (c).                       
                                   THE REFERENCES                                     
          Uvarov et al. (Uvarov)          4,246,134          Jan. 20, 1981            
          Nowlin et al. (Nowlin)          5,332,706          Jul. 26, 1994            
                                    THE REJECTION                                     
               Claims 1-4, 6-9, 12-14 and 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.           
          § 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Nowlin           
          and Uvarov.                                                                 
                                       OPINION                                        
               We reverse the aforementioned rejection.  We need to address           
          only the sole independent claim, i.e., claim 1.                             


                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007