Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
1 that priority should be awarded to none of the involved parties. Anderson v. Natta,
2 480 F.2d 1392, 1399, 178 USPQ 458, 463 (CCPA 1973).3
3 Following the interference, the examiner made a number of rejections in the
4 ‘600 application in an Office action dated May 2, 1984, including rejections under
5 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Vandenberg. On appeal, the Board
6 affirmed the examiner’s rejections based on the Vandenberg reference. Ex parte
7 Natta, Appeal No. 89-1569 (BPAI 1990), The patentees did not appeal this ruling
8 and the ‘600 application was abandoned in favor of yet another application, namely
9 07/607,215 filed on October 29, 1990, in which there was no prosecution.
10 In Application 07/883,912, the examiner maintained the rejections. (Office
11 action mailed on June 16, 1992, paper 59.) Specifically, the examiner did not
12 credit the testimonies of the experts because their declarations were inconsistent
13 with the text of the documents and explained that the declarations “cannot supply
14 to the priority documents what is not there.” In addition to the rejections based on
15 prior art, the examiner added two new grounds of rejections based on 35 U.S.C. §
16 112, ¶1. Specifically, claims 11 and 17 were rejected as having “no support in the
17 specification for the subject matter of the phrase ‘coordination catalyst, one
18 component of which contains a Ti-Cl bond’” and claims 11-17 were rejected as
3 The CCPA expressly declined to consider whether the patentees were
entitled to an earlier filing date of June 8, 1955, the date on which the ‘097
application was filed, because the issue was not raised before the Board.
40
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013