Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
1 having a titanium to chloride bond, the specification and priority
2 document do not describe this invention.
3
4 Furthermore, in an Office action approved by Supervisory Patent Examiner
5 Schofer and mailed on April 8, 1993 (paper 63, page 4), Examiner Smith again
6 emphasized: “The reference to ethylene [in the prior applications and the priority
7 documents]...is always that the alpha-olefin is mixed with a small amount or 5% of
8 ethylene. There is no suggestion in the specification to increase the percentage of
9 ethylene above 5%, much less to the unlimited range of these claims.” Again, we
10 find ourselves in complete agreement with Examiner Smith’s analysis.
11 More generally, we decline to credit any of the testimonies contained in the
12 relied upon declarations, including the declarations of Joseph C. Floyd and Lido
13 Porri, which the reexamination examiner found cumulative to other declarations of
14 record and therefore unpersuasive. (Examiner’s answer at 17-19.) We find that
15 the testimonies are at odds with the actual text of the as-filed disclosures in
16 question (as well as the prosecution history), because they state that the as-filed
17 disclosures contain a written description of a process for ethylene
18 (co)polymerization without any ethylene content limitation in direct contradiction
19 to the actual text, which indicates to one skilled in the relevant art that ethylene, if
20 used, is polymerized in “small amounts.” We therefore do not find the testimonies
21 credible. Cf. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1330
67
Page: Previous 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013