Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
1 47. The examiner refused entry of the declarations as untimely and the
2 application was abandoned without any appeal.
3 48. In 07/883,912, the examiner maintained the rejections and explained
4 that the declarations were unpersuasive. (Office action mailed on
5 June 16, 1992, paper 59.)
6 49. The examiner did not credit the testimonies of the experts because
7 their declarations were inconsistent with the text of the documents and
8 explained that the declarations “cannot supply to the priority
9 documents what is not there.” (Office action mailed on June 16,
10 1992, paper 59 at 2-3.)
11 50. In addition to the rejections based on prior art, the examiner added
12 two new grounds of rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1. (Id.)
13 51. Specifically, claims 11 and 17 were rejected as having “no support in
14 the specification for the subject matter of the phrase ‘coordination
15 catalyst, one component of which contains a Ti-Cl bond’” and claims
16 11-17 were rejected as having “no support in the specification for the
17 subject matter of the phrases ‘interpolymerizing
18 ethylene...cycloaliphatic radical’ and ‘interpolymerizing ethylene with
19 styrene C6H5CH=CH2.’”
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013