Appeal 2007-2136
Application 10/457,769
polymerization of the reaction mixture recited in step a and additional
polymerization upon the introduction of additional amounts of molecular
hydrogen and first olefin in step c. However, we agree with the Examiner
that the continuous method described in Winslow has both of these two
steps. In particular, in the continuous method, once some of each of the
reactants are fed into the reactor, there would be some polymerization of the
reaction mixture, as required in step a. Then, as additional ethylene,
n-hexene, and hydrogen gas are fed into the reactor, there would be
additional polymerization, as required in step c. We do not agree that
claim 28 requires that the introduction of reactants be stopped and then
restarted in step c, such that the end of step a and the start of step c can be
clearly identified.
Appellants also argue that the “formation of polymer resins with [the]
combination of properties [recited in claim 28] is not a necessary outcome
of the processes taught by Winslow” and that therefore Winslow does not
anticipate claim 28 (Br. 7). In addition, Appellants argue that Winslow
“does not suggest or provide any motivation for adjusting parameters to
obtain polymer resin simultaneously having a density greater than about
0.92, and a long chain branching index of about 1 to about 6” (id. at 8).
Furthermore, Appellants argue that, because “the claims at issue are method
claims . . . , the statements regarding substantially identical products and
reliance on In re Fessman[n] and In re Fitzgerald is inappropriate” (id. at 9).
We are not persuaded by these arguments. First, we do not agree that
the Examiner’s reliance on Fessmann and Fitzgerald is inappropriate. As
pointed out by Appellants, claim 28 is a method claim, whereas Fessmann
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013