Appeal 2007-2656
Application 11/133,685
The Examiner has found that Shamshoum describes a catalyst
corresponding to the catalyst of representative claim 5 by describing the
process by which the catalyst is prepared (Answer 3-4). As correctly
determined by the Examiner (id.), Shamshoum describes a Ziegler-Natta
type catalyst that is made via a method that corresponds to the method that
the claimed catalyst is made by, including the preparation of a catalyst
component using a magnesium dialkoxide that was contacted with a
halogenation agent followed with three successive titanating contacting
steps (Shamshoum: abstract; col. 2, ll. 11-25 and 39-42; col. 3, ll. 7-24; col.
4, l. 43 – col. 5, l. 51; and col. 5, ll. 28-40). Shamshoum discloses that the
co-catalyst component made by the above described method is combined
(contacted) with an organoaluminum co-catalyst component (Shamshoum;
col. 5, ll. 28-30). In light of the catalyst described by Shamshoum and the
Examiner’s findings respecting same, we determine that the Examiner has
made out a prima facie case of anticipation of representative claim 5.
Appellants contend that the co-catalyst of Shamshoum does not meet
the claimed organometallic preactivating agent (Br. 3; Reply Br. 1-2).
Moreover, Appellants contend that the catalyst component of Shamshoum is
not prepared with a step of contacting reaction product A (product of
magnesium dialkoxide compound halogenation contacting step) with a first
titaniting agent (Br. 3; Reply Br. 2).
Hence, the issue before us in this appeal is: Have Appellants
identified reversible error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection by the
above-noted contentions and the arguments with respect thereto as more
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013