Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
1 It has been found, also, that even when ethylene is polymerized
2 with the aid of the special promoters obtained by reaction of heavy
3 metal and metal alkyl compounds, in the ratios proposed for
4 promoting ethylene polymerization, the presence of any substantial
5 amount of the higher olefins inhibits polymerization of the ethylene,
6 while the higher olefins, if they react at all, do so only at very low
7 reaction rates and, in any case, without yielding polymers of the type
8 with which this invention is concerned.
9
10 The patent owner also refers to the disclosure at pages 5-6. (Amended appeal brief
11 at 61-62.)
12 We find nothing in the text of these disclosures that would support the patent
13 owner’s argument. And, we decline to credit the testimonies of the patent owner’s
14 experts on this matter because the testimonies are not reasonably consistent with
15 the text of the ‘840 specification. What is lacking in the disclosures at pages 4-6 is
16 a statement that would have reasonably conveyed to one skilled in the relevant art
17 that polymerization of relatively high amounts of ethylene with minor amounts of
18 other olefins, which is undeniably encompassed by appealed claim 9, was also part
19 of the patentees’ invention.
20 Also, contrary to the belief of the patent owner (and its experts), the
21 disclosure at pages 5-6 does not say anything about ethylene. Indeed, the second
22 paragraph at page 10 of the ‘840 application (quoted in the amended appeal brief at
23 62) directly refutes the patent owner’s argument that the disclosures reasonably
71
Page: Previous 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013