Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
1 84. The Board in Ex parte Natta, Appeal No. 89-1569 (‘666 application)
2 explained (id. at 3-4):
3 Claim 11 is directed to a method of
4 interpolymerizing ethylene with a specified class of alpha
5 olefins which excludes propylene. The claim does not
6 place any limit on either the number or proportion of
7 monomers present during interpolymerization.
8 The ‘227 [Italian] application describes processes
9 for polymerizing propylene. At best, this application
10 describes copolymers of propylene which contain a small
11 amount of ethylene. Since claim 11 excludes propylene
12 and is unlimited in respect to the amount of ethylene used
13 in the process, we do not find that the ‘227 application
14 describes the subject matter of claim 11 in the manner
15 provided by 35 USC § 112, first paragraph.
16 Accordingly, we find that the claims on appeal are not
17 entitled to the benefit of the ‘227 application under 35
18 USC § 119.
19 The ‘109 [Italian] application describes methods of
20 forming alpha olefin polymers and copolymers.
21 However, this application only describes copolymers of
22 alpha olefins and ethylene which contain a small
23 proportion of ethylene. We agree with the examiner that
24 this limited description of a process for making a very
25 narrow class of copolymers does not provide the
26 requisite descriptive support for the much broader
27 process which is now claimed. Accordingly, we find that
28 the claims are not entitled to the benefit of the ‘109
29 application under 35 USC § 119. [Emphasis added.]
30
31 85. Regarding the 37 CFR § 1.132 declaration of Umberto Giannini filed
32 on May 19, 1987, the Board found it unpersuasive as follows (id. at 4-
33 5): “As pointed out by the examiner, Dr. Giannini’s declaration is
34 directed to whether the Italian applications enable one to practice the
27
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013