Appeal No. 2004-0770
Application No. 09/795,310
polymerization by both Smith and Spada of identical monomers,
employing the same or similar polymerization techniques, would
produce polymers having the identical composition.”).
Appellants also argue that the description in Cheng of the FPC
as being “amorphous in the undeformed state” does not describe an
atactic polypropylene (Reply Brief, page 3, citing Coates et al.).
This argument is not well taken for several reasons. First, Cheng
specifically discloses an embodiment of the FPC where atactic
polypropylene is included (col. 7, ll. 44-45). Second, appellants
disclose that it is believed “that the majority of amorphous
polypropylene has an atactic structure.” Specification, page 1,
ll. 12-15.
Appellants present specific arguments regarding the
patentability of claims 2, 3 and 6 (Brief, pages 8-9; Reply Brief,
pages 6-7). These arguments are not persuasive. Regarding the
limitations of claim 2, we note that Cheng discloses the
preparation of both the FPC and the SPC by use of metallocene
catalyst systems (e.g., see col. 8, ll. 8-23, and col. 11, l. 33).1
1 We note that claim 2 recites atactic polypropylene
prepared by copolymerization of propylene and another olefin.
It appears that appellants intended to recite elastomeric
polypropylene. This error does not affect the rejection since
Cheng discloses metallocene catalysts for either the FPC or SPC.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007