Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
1 14, 1959; Exhibit A attached to the Amendment filed on 1985, paper
2 58 in the ‘840 application; Amendment filed on October 19, 1984 in
3 Application 06/498,699.)
4 30. Although the patentees could have done so, they did not file another
5 application to separate the October 2, 1964 claims.
6 31. The patentees prevailed in the interference proceeding involving the
7 October 2, 1964 claims when the United States Court of Customs and
8 Patent Appeals (CCPA) reversed the Board’s ruling that priority
9 should be awarded to none of the involved parties. Anderson v. Natta,
10 480 F.2d 1392, 1399, 178 USPQ 458, 463 (CCPA 1973).
11 32. The ‘840 application was intentionally abandoned in favor of another
12 application, namely the 06/498,699 application filed on May 27, 1983.
13 (March 30, 2005 Decision at 32-35.)
14 33. In the ‘699 application, the patentees submitted claims directed to the
15 interpolymerization of ethylene with a C4 or higher unsaturated
16 hydrocarbon in the presence of a coordination catalyst, one
17 component of which contains Ti-Cl.
18 34. In an Office action mailed on May 2, 1984, the examiner made a
19 number of rejections, including rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013