Appeal 2006-2487
Application 10/227,075
to form a homopolymer or copolymer of an olefin in accordance with processes
within the scope of claim 1 on appeal. Appellants submit that Sasaki’s disclosure
that the porous carrier can be “an organic porous polymer selected from the group
consisting of polystyrene, polyacrylic ester, polyacylonitrile; polyvinylchloride and
polyolefin” (see claim 1) “encompass thousands of potential carriers” (Br. 5-6).
However, as properly pointed out by the Examiner, Sasaki expressly teaches that
polymer beads of polyacylonitrile are preferable, and that “those of polystyrene,
styrene-divinylbenzene copolymer and polyvinylchloride are more preferable”
(col. 8, ll. 45-47). Consequently, inasmuch as PVC is one of the “more preferable”
materials taught by Sasaki, we hardly agree with Appellants’ characterization of
Sasaki as teaching PVC in a laundry list of polymer particles. Clearly, one of
ordinary skill in the art is directed by Sasaki to do precisely what Appellants have
done, namely, select PVC as a suitable porous polymeric carrier for the catalyst.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Example 24 of
Sasaki teaches one of ordinary skill in the art that “transition metal compounds are
to be added to PVC carriers in conjunction with an electron donor
(tetraethoxysilane in the Example 24)” (Br. 6, third paragraph). We find that the
Examiner has effectively refuted this argument by pointing out that the first listed
method among the five disclosed by Sasaki for making the catalyst comprises
treating the porous polymer carrier with an organo magnesium compound, and
then treating it with TiCl4 in the absence of an electron donor. We fully concur
with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
Sasaki teaches the use of an electron donor as an option.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007