Ex Parte Lynch et al - Page 8

                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