Appeal 2007-0075
Application 10/759,299
Reply Br. 4-5; see also the examples of Iketmatsu ‘103 and ‘406). The
Appellants’ only argument is that it would not have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to employ an aluminoxane component in the
polymerization step taught by Ikematsu ‘103 or 406. (Br. 15-19). In support
of this position, the Appellants also refer to the Rule 132 declaration of
record, namely the declaration executed by Takuo Sone, one of the inventors
in the present application, on March 30, 2005. (Br. 16-19 and Reply Br. 5).
Therefore, the dispositive question is whether the employment of an
aluminoxane component in the polymerization step taught by Ikematus ‘103
or ‘406 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. On this record, we answer this question in the
affirmative.
As indicated supra, there is no dispute that Iketmatsu ‘103 and “406
teach polymerizing conjugated diene with a catalyst system comprising the
claimed rare earth metal, halide and organoaluminum compounds in the
presence of an inert organic solvent to form conjugated diene polymers
having narrow molecular distributions and high cis-1, 4-bond contents. (See
also the examples of Iketmatsu ‘103 and ‘406). As also indicated supra,
there is no dispute that Iketmatsu ‘103 and ‘406 teach reacting the resulting
conjugated diene polymers with the claimed coupling agent to increase the
polymer molecular weights or to branch the polymer chains to improve their
compatibility with other polymer materials, such as rubbers, fillers and
polymer modifiers. (See also Iketmatsu ‘103, paragraphs 0006 and 009 and
Iketmatsu ‘406). The Examiner has acknowledged that Iketmatsu ‘103 and
‘406 “do not mention an aluminoxane component, such as methyl
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013