Appeal No. 2004-0770
Application No. 09/795,310
With regard to the limitation of claim 3, if the identical
composition is described by the prior art, it will necessarily have
the same properties. Finally, with regard to the limitations of
claim 6, appellants have not contested the examiner’s finding that
the metallocene catalysts of Cheng include the specific catalysts
of this claim (Answer, page 4).
In view of the claim construction discussed above, we
determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation in view of the reference evidence. Accordingly, we
affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) over Cheng.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007