Appeal No. 2002-0972
Application 08/816,466
would have been to obtain a highly useful method for making a
supported olefin polymerization catalyst (answer, pages 5-6).2
The examiner has not established that Uvarov does not adjust
the vacuum during the heating step such that the pressure remains
constant. Even if there is no pressure adjustment, the examiner
has not established that there is a region of higher pressure and
lower pressure in Uvarov’s flask. It reasonably appears that
both the catalyst and the solution within the flask are at the
same pressure.3
Thus, the examiner has not established that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have considered Uvarov’s vacuum to be
anything more than an alternative to Uvarov’s inert gas
atmosphere, i.e., another way of providing a nonreactive
atmosphere. The examiner has not established that such an
atmosphere would have been desired by one of ordinary skill in
2 The examiner further argues that there would be an expected benefit of
the catalyst not fouling the reactor (answer, page 5), but this is a benefit
of Nowlin’s catalyst (abstract) even if Uvarov’s teaching is not combined with
that of Nowlin.
3 The examiner argues that “[t]he present invention is in essence quite
simple. An increase in the gas pressure above a solution is used to drive
that solution into a porous material that is immersed in the solution”
(answer, page 6). The examiner alternatively should consider viewing the
function of the appellant’s vacuum as being to suck air out of the catalyst
pores so that this air does not impede the passage of the solution into the
pores.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007