Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
1 If so, do the patentees’ earlier United States applications and the two Italian
2 priority documents describe the subject matter of the appealed claims within the
3 meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1, such that Vandenberg would not be available as
4 prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102?
5 If Vandenberg raises a substantial new question of patentability and is
6 available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102, are appealed claims 1-4, 8-13, 15, 21-
7 26, 28, 31, 32, 35, 39-44, and 48-52 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
8 anticipated by Vandenberg and are appealed claims 1-52 unpatentable under 35
9 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Vandenberg?
10
11 FINDINGS OF FACT
12 The following findings of fact (hereinafter “FF __”) are supported by a
13 preponderance of the evidence. To the extent that any of these findings are
14 considered legal conclusions, they may be treated as such.
15 Background
16 1. The patentees state they invented a polymerization process comprising
17 polymerizing ethylene with a specified alpha-olefin in the presence of
18 a catalyst obtained by reacting an aluminum alkyl compound with a
19 catalytic titanium halide compound. (Amended appeal brief at 9.)
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013