Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
1 64. In Ex parte Natta, Appeal No. 95-2683, the pertinent issue was
2 whether the claims were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1,
3 because the disclosure of the ‘912 application, as originally filed, did
4 not provide adequate written description support for the claimed
5 subject matter, which recited “interpolymerizing
6 ethylene...cycloaliphatic radical” and “interpolymerizing ethylene
7 with styrene.”
8 65. The Board in Ex parte Natta, Appeal No. 95-2683 held:
9 Fatal to the examiner’s rejection is the fact that the
10 appealed claims contain no language regarding the
11 amount of ethylene used in the polymerization process
12 that is not described in the original specification...While
13 it can be argued that the appealed claims encompass
14 amounts of ethylene greater than 5%, it is well settled
15 that it is not the function of the claims to specifically
16 exclude possible inoperable substances or ineffective
17 reactant proportions. [Ex parte Natta, Appeal No. 95-
18 2683 at 7-8.]
19
20 66. The Board in Ex parte Natta, Appeal No. 95-2683, slip op. at 9 also
21 referred to the disclosure at page 10, lines 10-14, which states:
22 The method of this invention may be used for
23 polymerizing vinyl hydrocarbons of the formula given
24 including propylene, butene-1, pentene-1, hexane-1,
25 styrene, and so on, as well as mixtures thereof and
26 mixtures of the vinyl hydrocarbon with small amounts of
27 ethylene. [Emphasis added.]
28
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013