Appeal 2007-0072
Application 09/945,861
(Br. 6-7, citing Sugimura col. 1, ll. 15-24, col. 4, ll. 20-62, col. 5, ll. 52-54,
Figure; reply Br. unnumbered pages 4-5). Appellants point out that
Brookhart discloses processes producing alpha-olefins with oligomerization
catalysts as opposed to polyolefins with polymerization catalysts, and
teaches that the former can be used in processes to produce the latter (Br.
6 and 7). Appellant’s further points out Brookhart’s compounds are not
similar to Sugimura’s diimine complexes (Reply Br. unnumbered page 4).
Appellants contend that replacing one of Sugimura’s polymerization
catalysts with Brookhart’s oligomerization catalysts would result in a single
polyolefin which is not the product produced by Sugimura’s processes (id.
7-8; Reply Br. unnumbered pages 5-6).
The plain language of independent claim 42 encompasses a
polymerization catalyst component comprising at least a first active
polymerization catalyst which is an iron (Fe) or cobalt (Co) complex of a
pyridine containing bisimine ligand having the structural formula depicted in
the claim; any second active polymerization catalyst which contains one or
more transition metals; and any catalyst support. There is no specified
substrate specified for the catalysts. A polymerization catalyst that
“produces an oligomer of the formula R60CH=CH2 from ethylene wherein
R60 is n-alkyl,” that is, an alpha olefin with unspecified carbon content, can
be a first or second active catalyst component of claim 42 as evinced in
dependent claim 43. Any polymerization catalyst that can be characterized
as “a Ziegler-Natta or a metallocene polymerization catalyst” can be a
second active polymerization catalyst component of claim 42 as evinced in
dependent claim 44. The transitional term “comprising” opens claim 42 to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013