Appeal 2007-0075
Application 10/759,299
shown that this limited showing can be extrapolated to, for example, the
materially different polymerization catalysts and conditions, and coupling
compounds encompassed by the appealed claims. This is especially true in
this situation since the examples in Iketmatsu ‘103 or ‘406 show that the
molecular weigh distributions of conjugated diene polymers, for example,
can vary depending on the types of catalytic components (e.g., rare earth
metal compounds and organoaluminum compounds) employed.
Thus, based on the totality of record, including due consideration of
the Appellants’ arguments, we determine that the preponderance of evidence
weighs most heavily in favor of obviousness within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, for the factual findings set forth in the
Answer and above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting the claims
on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
V. ORDER
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
VI. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013