Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
compound with a catalytic titanium mixing 0.0603 part of diethylaluminum
halide compound.” chloride (corresponding to the
appellant’s recited aluminum alkyl
compound) and 0.0475 part of titanium
tetrachloride (corresponding to the
appellant’s recited titanium halide
compound) and used without aging; (ii)
triethylaluminum (corresponding to the
appellant’s recited aluminum alkyl
compound); and (iii) n-heptane (column
10, line 73 to column 11, line 14)
1
2 116. Claim 9 is much broader than claim 1 in that ethylene is not recited.
3
4 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
5 35 U.S.C. § 303(a) in effect on June 7, 2002 permits reexaminations based
6 on old (i.e., previously considered) prior art if it raises a “substantial new question
7 of patentability.” MPEP § 2258.01 (8th ed., Rev. 2, May 2004).
8 For a claim to be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of a previously filed
9 application under 35 U.S.C. § 120, the previously filed application must comply
10 with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1. In re Curtis, 354
11 F.3d 1347, 1351-52, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
12 To be entitled to priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a), the relied upon foreign
13 patent application must meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
37
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013