Appeal 2006-2487
Application 10/227,075
(a) treating PVC-based particles with an organomagnesium compound
in an inert hydrocarbon solvent; and
(b) contacting said treated PVC-based particles of step (a) with a
transition metal compound selected from the group consisting of TiCl4,
VCl4, and ZrCl4, in the absence of an electron donor.
The Examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence of
obviousness:
Sasaki US 5,051,484 Sep. 24, 1991
All of the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sasaki.
Appellants submit at page 5 of the principal Brief that all the appealed
claims “stand or fall together.” Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall
together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments set forth in the
principal and Reply Briefs on appeal. However, we are in complete agreement
with the Examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of Section 103 in view of the applied
prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection as set forth in the
Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the following for emphasis only.
As explained by the Examiner, Sasaki, like Appellants, discloses a process
for polymerizing olefins by contacting the olefin in the absence of an electron
donor with a catalyst composition prepared by treating PVC-particles with an
organo magnesium compound in a hydrocarbon solvent, and treating the PVC-
particles with a transition metal compound, e.g., TiCl4. Consequently, we have no
doubt that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007