Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
1 What is lacking in this disclosure is a statement that would have reasonably
2 conveyed to one skilled in the relevant art that polymerization of relatively high
3 amounts of ethylene with minor or small amounts of other olefins was also part of
4 the patentees’ invention.
5 We have also considered the other portions of the ‘097 and ‘840 applications
6 on which the patent owners relies. (Amended appeal brief at 45-50.) We find
7 these portions equally unavailing.
8 We have also considered the patent owner’s other contentions regarding the
9 disclosures in the earlier applications. (Amended appeal brief at 50-79.) We are
10 not persuaded by any of them because, in a nutshell, absence of written description
11 support does not amount to adequate support. The patent owner argues that the
12 description of stereoregular products in the Italian applications would indicate that
13 amorphous polymers are also made. (Amended appeal brief at 52.) But the patent
14 owner has not directed us to any credible evidence that would indicate that such
15 amorphous polymers were also patentees’ invention.
16 The relied upon disclosure of “olefins without a vinyl group” (allegedly a
17 genus encompassing ethylene) in Italian ‘109 includes an indeterminate number of
18 species and is therefore not sufficiently specific to constitute a description of
19 ethylene. (Amended appeal brief at 55-57.) Regarding this matter, we do not
20 credit Floyd (Floyd’s Third Declaration, Exhibit 4, ¶18) that ethylene is an
75
Page: Previous 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013