Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
1 encompassing the polymerization of ethylene in any relative amount. None of the
2 priority applications or the first two United States applications in the chain
3 describe such processes. To the contrary, the original disclosures would have
4 reasonably conveyed to one skilled in the relevant art that ethylene, if present,
5 would only be polymerized in “small amounts.”
6 Consequently, we determine that the appealed claims are not entitled to an
7 earlier filing date sufficient to antedate Vandenberg. Vandenberg, which is
8 available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), was incorrectly excluded from the
9 realm of relevant prior art at the time the claims were issued. Because the primary
10 purpose of the reexamination statute is to correct errors made by the government,
11 to remedy defective governmental (not private) action, and if need be to remove
12 patents that never should have been granted, we conclude that Vandenberg, which
13 anticipates or renders obvious all the appealed claims, raises a substantial new
14 question of patentability.
15
16 The Technology
17 The patentees state they invented a polymerization process comprising
18 polymerizing ethylene with a specified alpha-olefin in the presence of a catalyst
19 obtained by reacting an aluminum alkyl compound with a catalytic titanium halide
20 compound. The catalyst recited in the appealed claims encompasses virtually all,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013