Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
1 not identified as a comonomer as in the appealed claims. Instead, the ’109 states
2 (id. at 4):
3 Higher ratios between titanium and aluminum than previously
4 proposed by Ziegler for the polymerization of ethylene, bring about an
5 increase in the activity of the catalysts which renders the
6 polymerization of propylene possible...
7
8 Furthermore, ethylene is described as a byproduct of an in situ reaction of
9 the alkylaluminum compound and the titanium compound or the alpha-olefin. (Id.
10 at 5 and 6.) Thus, the ’109 application does not reasonably convey to one skilled
11 in the relevant art that the patentees had possession of a process for polymerizing
12 ethylene (in any relative amount) and the specified alpha-olefin in the presence of
13 the specified catalyst to form a polymer having any stereoregularity or structure.
14 Because the ’109 application does not provide adequate written description for the
15 subject matter of the appealed claims, the patentees are not entitled to benefit of
16 priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119.
17 Our factual findings and legal conclusions with respect to the Italian
18 applications are generally consistent with those of this Board in Ex parte Natta,
19 Appeal No. 89-1569, slip op. at 2-6 (paper 40 of application 06/906,600). In that
20 decision, the Board held that claims similar to those now on appeal were not
21 entitled to 35 U.S.C. § 119 benefit of either of the Italian applications (24227 and
22 25109). (Id. at 3.) The Board explained (id. at 3-4):
59
Page: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013