Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
1 remarkable regularity of structure and crystallinity” using a catalyst
2 composition based on the reaction product of an alkylaluminum
3 compound and a reactive titanium compound such as titanium
4 tetrachloride. (Translation at 1-2.)
5 79. Regarding the alpha-olefins, the ’109 application refers to those
6 having the formula “CH2=CHR type higher than propylene.” (Id. at
7 8.)
8 80. While ethylene is mentioned in the ’109 application, it is not
9 identified as a comonomer as in the appealed claims.
10 81. Instead, the ’109 application states (id. at 4):
11 Higher ratios between titanium and aluminum than
12 previously proposed by Ziegler for the polymerization of
13 ethylene, bring about an increase in the activity of the
14 catalysts which renders the polymerization of propylene
15 possible...
16
17 82. Ethylene is described as a byproduct of an in situ reaction of the
18 alkylaluminum compound and the titanium compound or the alpha-
19 olefin. (Id. at 5-6.)
20 83. The Board in Ex parte Natta, Appeal No. 89-1569, slip op. at 2-6
21 (paper 40 of application 06/906,600) held that claims similar to those
22 now on appeal were not entitled to 35 U.S.C. § 119 benefit of either of
23 the Italian applications (24227 and 25109). (Id. at 3.)
26
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013