Ex Parte Thorman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2014

11846676 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/846,676 08/29/2007 Joseph L. Thorman COS-964 DIV 1873
25264 7590 03/20/2014
FINA TECHNOLOGY INC
PO BOX 674412
HOUSTON, TX 77267-4412
EXAMINER
LU, C CAIXIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1765
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2014 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOSEPH L. THORMAN and
KENNETH P. BLACKMON
____________

Appeal 2012-010883
Application 11/846,676
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, PETER F. KRATZ, and
CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-11 and 20. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A process for preparing an olefin polymer comprising contacting at
least one olefinic C3+ monomer and a catalyst composition comprising a
Ziegler-Natta catalyst, dicyclopentyl dimethoxysilane as a first electron
donor, and a second electron donor selected from the group consisting of
methyl trimethoxysilane, methyl triethoxysilane, dimethyl dimethoxysilane,
and mixtures thereof, under reaction conditions suitable to form an olefinic
polymer wherein the polymer produced has a molecular weight distribution
that is broader than that of a polymer produced under the same conditions
using any of the electron donors alone.
Appeal 2012-010883
Application 11/846,676

2
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Ishimaru US 5,652,303 Jul. 29, 1997
Miro '294 US 6,566,294 B2 May 20, 2003
Miro '459 US 6,087,459 Jul. 11, 2000

Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a process for preparing an
olefinic polymer, such as polypropylene. The process comprises contacting
the olefinic monomer with a catalyst composition. The catalyst composition
comprises a Ziegler-Natta catalyst, dicyclopentyl dimethoxysilane (DCPMS)
as a first electron donor, and a second electron donor selected from the
group consisting of methyl trimethoxysilane (MTMS), methyl
triethoxysilane (MTES), and dimethyl dimethoxysilane (DMDMS). The
polymer product has a molecular weight distribution that is broader than a
polymer produced when using only one of the recited electron donors.
Appealed claims 1-11 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ishimaru.
Appellants do not present separate arguments for any particular claim
on appeal. Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or fall together with
claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Appeal 2012-010883
Application 11/846,676

3
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
There is no dispute that Ishimaru, like Appellants, discloses a process
for preparing an olefinic polymer comprising contacting at least one olefinic
C3+ monomer in a catalyst composition comprising a Ziegler-Natta catalyst,
and first and second electron donors which may be DCPMS, MTMS, and
DMDMS. The principal argument advanced by Appellants is that the
claimed electron donors are included in a long list of electron donors
disclosed by Ishimaru, and the reference "provides no guidance in choosing
which of these near infinite numbers of compounds would, paired, meet the
formula log[MFR(b)/MFR(a)>1.5, other than six examples where Ishimaru
pairs:

“(Prin. Br. 12, second para.).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Although it is true
that Ishimaru discloses a myriad of electron donors from which the first and
second electron donors may be chosen, the Examiner correctly points out
Appeal 2012-010883
Application 11/846,676

4
that Ishimaru discloses a particular preference for organic silicon compounds
according to the recited formulas, and specifies DMDMS (col. 10, line 56),
DCPMS (col. 11, line 35), and MTMS (col. 12, line 16). Also, Ishimaru
provides further guidance to Appellants' first and second electron donors in
Example 1. In particular, the reference exemplifies a combination of
DCPMS and propyltriethoxysilane, a homologue of the claimed MTES. The
exemplified combination of first and second electron donors produces, like
Appellants' combination of electron donors, a polymer having a molecular
weight distribution that is broader than a polymer produced using only one
of the electron donors.
Appellants contend that "the Examiner has provided no proof that
specific compounds cited in Ishimaru are homologues to those recited in
Applicants [sic, Applicants'] claims" (Reply Br. 6, last para.). However, it is
well known in the art that methyl and propyl alkyl chains are chemical
homologues, and we agree with the Examiner that MTES and
propyltriethoxysilane are sufficiently similar in structure such that one of
ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the compounds share
similar properties. Appellants have not advanced an argument, let alone
supporting evidence, to the contrary.
Appellants also maintain that the Examiner has offered no proof that
the combination of the claimed electron donors would meet Ishimaru's
formula which defines the ratio of melt flow rates (MFR) produced by the
first and second electron donors. However, Appellants have not addressed,
let alone refuted, the rationale set forth at pages 6-7 of the Answer in support
of the conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art, selecting the presently
Appeal 2012-010883
Application 11/846,676

5
claimed first and second electron donors, would meet Ishimaru's specified
ratio of MFR's.
Also, although Appellants cite Table 2 in their Specification for
distinguishing the pairing of vinyltriethyoxysilane with DCPMS from the
pairings of electron donors recited in the present claims, Appellants have not
established that the results would have been unexpected to one of ordinary
skill in the art. Furthermore, for the reasons set forth above, we consider
Example 1 of Ishimaru to represent the closest prior art.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

cam