Appeal 2007-2656
Application 11/133,685
such as trialkylaluminum, for combination with the catalyst component
prepared from a magnesium dialkoxide that was contacted with a
halogenation agent followed with three successive titanating contacting steps
(Shamshoum col. 5, ll. 28-39). Here, representative claim 5 is not so
limited as to exclude the described organometallic co-catalyst of
Shamshoum by use of the claim phrase “preactivating agent.” See In re Self,
671 F.2d 1344, 1350-1351, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982). Indeed,
Appellants disclose that the claimed preactivation agent is inclusive of an
organometallic compound (Specification ¶¶ 0044 and 0045) and the same
trialkyl aluminum as the organometallic preactivating agent is specified in
claim 3. It follows that this argument is not persuasive of any reversible
error in the stated rejection.
Having reconsidered the Examiner’s anticipation rejection in light of
Appellants’ arguments as presented in the Briefs, we remain persuaded that
the representative claim 5 catalyst is anticipated by the catalyst described in
Shamshoum.
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 2-7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Shamshoum is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013