Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
1 Example 5, the ’227 application explains: “Small amounts of ethylene contained in
2 the propylene employed do not interfere with the polymerization itself.” (Id. at 9.)
3 The appealed claims, by contrast, do not even recite propylene as a
4 copolymerizable monomer. Nor do they require the production of highly
5 crystalline propylene polymers. To the contrary, appealed claim 1 recites the
6 polymerization of ethylene (in any relative amount) with a specified C4 or higher
7 alpha-olefin in the presence of the specified catalyst composition to form polymers
8 having any degree of crystallinity. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said
9 that the ’227 Italian application reasonably conveys to one skilled in the relevant
10 art that the patentees had possession of the subject matter of the appealed claims.
11 Similarly, Italian application 25109 is of no help to the patentees for
12 purposes of obtaining the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 119
13 with respect to the subject matter of the appealed claims. Like the ’227
14 application, the ’109 Italian application describes the production of solid propylene
15 polymers or specified alpha-olefin polymers having “a remarkable regularity of
16 structure and crystallinity” using a catalyst composition based on the reaction
17 product of an alkylaluminum compound and a reactive titanium compound such as
18 titanium tetrachloride. (Translation at 2-3.) Regarding the alpha-olefins, the ’109
19 application refers to those having the formula “CH2=CHR type higher than
20 propylene.” (Id. at 7.) While ethylene is mentioned in the ’109 application, it is
58
Page: Previous 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013