Appeal 2007-0075
Application 10/759,299
admission at pages 3 and 4 of the Specification directed to conjugated diene
polymers produced with a polymerization catalysts containing the claimed
components, including an aluminoxane component, having compatibility
concerns. Tsujimoto, like Iketmatsu ‘103 and ‘406, also teaches blending
the resulting conjugated diene polymers with rubbers and/or fillers, thus
providing an incentive to further react its conjugated diene polymers like
those taught in Iketmatsu ‘103 and ‘406. (Tsujimoto, page 13, para. 0032).
The Appellants argue (Br. 16) that:
Appellants have provided a 132 Declaration (herewith in the
Evidence Appendix) with experimental data to show that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not combine Ikematsu [‘103 or]
‘406 and Tsujimoto ‘515 and also that the present invention (a
combination of the inventions disclosed in Ikematsu ‘406 [or
‘103] and Tusjimoto ‘515) provides a greater than expected
result as compared with the expected results from combining
Iketmatsu ‘406 [or ‘103] with [sic., and] Tusjimoto ‘515.
Our review of the Rule 132 Declaration indicates that it is not sufficient to
rebut the prima facie case of obviousness established by the Examiner.
First, we find that the Appellants have not demonstrated that the
showing in the Declaration would have discouraged one of ordinary skill in
the art from following the combined teachings of Ikematsu ‘103 or ‘406 and
Tsujimoto. We find that the showing in the Declaration is consistent with
what was reasonably expected by one of ordinary skill in the art from the
combined teachings of Kikematsu ‘103 or ‘406 and Tsujimoto. (See the
Declaration 3-5). Specifically, Table 2 in the Declaration demonstrates that
the molecular weight distributions (Mw/Wn) of conjugated diene polymers
are further narrowed from, for examples, 4.4 to 3.4 (Runs 5 and 1) by
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013