Ex Parte Lynch et al - Page 10

                Appeal  2007-2136                                                                                  
                Application  10/457,769                                                                            

                describe an ethylene/hexene ratio range.  Specifically, Winslow’s                                  
                Examples 3 and 4 state that the “ethylene was continuously fed into the                            
                isobutane filled reactor such that it was present in a concentration of                            
                between 10 and 15 mole %, based on the number of moles of isobutane                                
                present in the reactor” and that the “n-Hexene was continuously fed into the                       
                . . . reactor such that its concentration in the isobutane was between 0.5 and                     
                1.5 mole %” (Winslow, col. 12, ll. 14-20).  Appellants have not even                               
                attempted to demonstrate that a density greater than 0.92, or any of the other                     
                properties recited in claim 28, would not necessarily be inherent in the                           
                processes recited in Winslow’s Examples 3 and 4.                                                   
                       With regard to claim 41, Appellants additionally argue that Winslow                         
                “does not disclose the use of a modifier having formula (R1O)xSiR24-x” and                         
                that claim 41 “requires that the modifier be added during step c) which is                         
                well after the commencement of polymerization in step a)” (Br. 9).                                 
                       We are not persuaded by these arguments.  Claim 41 states that the                          
                modifier is added during step c.  However, claim 41 depends from claim 34,                         
                not claim 40 as indicated in the Appeal Brief (Br. 9).  Claim 34 states that                       
                the modifier is optional.  Thus, when claim 41 is given its broadest                               
                reasonable interpretation, we agree with the Examiner that “the modifier is                        
                optional in claim 41” (Answer 8).  Thus, Winslow need not describe the                             
                modifier or when it is added in order to teach or suggest claim 41.                                
                       We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that                         
                claims 28 and 41 are anticipated by or obvious over Winslow, which                                 
                Appellants have not rebutted.  We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 28                      



                                                        10                                                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013