Ex Parte Standaert et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 26, 2016

12305217 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/305,217 11130/2009 Alain Standaert
25264 7590 09/28/2016
FINA TECHNOLOGY INC
PO BOX 674412
HOUSTON, TX 77267-4412
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
F-1008 RCE 3 2217
EXAMINER
TESKIN, FRED M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1762
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
tammy.brzozowski@total.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte ALAIN STANDAERT, JEROME GROMADA, and
DAVID V ANDEWIELE
Appeal2015-000471
Application 12/305,217
Technology Center 1700
Before CHUNG K. PAK, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-000471
Application 12/305,217
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
12-19, 22-24, and 26-28. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants' invention is directed to a process for the polymerization
of propylene with one or more optional co-monomers in the presence of at
least two Ziegler-Natta catalysts with different internal donors (Spec. 1: 6-
8).
Claim 12 is illustrative:
12. A process for production of heterophasic propylene
copolymers comprising:
polymerizing propylene and ethylene in the presences of:
a first and second catalyst, wherein the first catalyst comprises
a Ziegler-Natta catalyst comprising a titanium compound having at
least one titanium-halogen bond, and a diether compound as an
internal electron donor, both supported on a magnesium halide in
active form, wherein the first catalyst is formed by reacting
anhydrous magnesium with alcohol, followed by titanation with the
titanium compound and reaction with the diether compound, wherein
the diether compound is 2-methyl-2-isopropyl-1,3-dimethoxpropane;
2,2-diisobutyl-1,3-dimethoxpropane; 2-isopropyl-2-cyclo-pentyl-1,3-
dimethoxypropane; or 2-isopropy 1-2-isoamy 1-1, 3-dimethoxpropane;
wherein the second catalyst comprises a Ziegler-Natta catalyst
comprising a titanium compound having at least one titanium-
halogen bond, and a succinate compound as an internal electron
donor, both supported on a magnesium halide in active form, wherein
the second catalyst is formed by reacting anhydrous magnesium with
alcohol, followed by titanation with the titanium compound and
reaction with the succinate compound; and
an organoaluminium compound and an optical external donor,
wherein the weight ratio of first catalyst to second catalyst is in the
range of from 0.01 to 100; and
2
Appeal2015-000471
Application 12/305,217
forming a heterophasic proplylene copolymer in a single gas
polymerization reactor or a single liquid polymerization reactor
comprised of a propylene homopolymer or random copolymer phase
and a rubber phase.
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 12-19, 22-24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over De Palo (WO 2005/014713 Al, issued Feb. 17, 2005) in
view of Gao (CN 1597714 A as translated), Kashiwa (US 4,071,674, issued
Jan. 31, 1978) and Chinese Patent (CN 1042547 A).
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that De Palo 1 teaches a process of making
heterophasic copolymers of propylene using one of the Ziegler-Natta
catalyst as required by claim 12 in a single reactor (Final Act. 3-4). The
Examiner finds that De Palo is silent regarding polymerizing propylene and
ethylene in the presence of a first catalyst comprising a Ziegler-Natta
catalyst having at least one titanium-halogen bond and a diether compound
or the ratio of the first catalyst to the second catalyst being from 0.01 to 100
(Final Act. 4). The Examiner finds that Gao discloses polymerizing
propylene in the presence of a first and second catalyst including a first and
a second catalyst as recited in claim 12 in order to produce propylene
polymers having superior mechanical properties to those produced by using
a single catalyst, such as higher crystallization temperature, melt strength,
and flexural strength (Final Act. 4-5). The Examiner concludes that it would
1 Appellants do not specifically contest the Examiner's findings or
conclusions regarding Kashiwa and Chinese Patent 104254 7 A (App. Br. 17).
Accordingly, the focus in the decision will be on De Palo's teachings and the
combination of Gao' s teachings with De Palo's process.
3
Appeal2015-000471
Application 12/305,217
have been obvious to combine the teachings of De Palo and Gao for the
benefit of producing a propylene polymer having superior mechanical
properties, such as higher crystallization temperature, melt strength, and
flexural strength (Final Act. 5).
Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest a
process for production of a heterophasic propylene copolymer in a single gas
polymerization reactor or a single liquid polymerization reactor (App. Br.
13). Appellants contend that De Palo describes on page 15 that the multiple
"reactors" are used and De Palo further teaches sequential polymerization is
used that requires a two-reactor system (App. Br. 14). Appellants argue that
the Examiner has not shown that Figure 1 in EP 782587, which is referenced
by De Palo on page 6, is a single reactor (App. Br. 15). Appellants contend
that the Examiner's position with regard to De Palo's number of reactors is
contradicted by De Palo that teaches two reactors (Reply Br. 8).
The Examiner finds that De Palo discloses that the reactor includes a
gas phase reactor that includes a riser zone and a down comer zone that are
interconnected to form a loop circulation (Ans. 9). The Examiner finds that
De Palo's two interconnected zones constitute one apparatus that form a
single reactor. Id. The Examiner refers to Figure 1 of EP 782587, which is
referenced on page 6 of De Palo, as showing an alternative embodiment
where gas-phase polymerization is carried out in at least two interconnected
polymerization zones (Ans. 9; De Palo 6).
The preponderance of the evidence favors the Examiner's finding that
De Palo teaches a single reactor within the meaning of the claim. We give
the term single reactor its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the Specification, which includes a single reactor with a single reaction zone
4
Appeal2015-000471
Application 12/305,217
or multiple reaction zones. See In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Appellants do not direct us to any portion of the
Specification that defines a single reactor as excluding a reactor having
multiple reaction zones. On page 7 of the Specification, Appellants describe
that the process may be carried out in a series of reactors or sequentially in
one or more loop reactors and one or more gas phase reactors. Appellants
prefer to use only one gas-phase reactor (Spec. 7:31-32). The Specification
includes sequentially forming the propylene copolymer in a single gas
reactor. The loop structure of De Palo's gas-phase reactor that sequentially
forms the polymer in two separate zones of a single reactor as shown in
Figure 1 of EP 782587 falls within the meaning of the claim.
De Palo's description on page 15 that the polymerization reactor
includes two "reactors" is not contradictory to De Palo's disclosure on page
6 that the loop reactor structure includes a first zone and second zone where
separate reactions occur. In other words, we understand the page 15
disclosure of two interconnected cylindrical reactors to mean a single reactor
having two reaction zones where separate reactions occur. We do not find
that De Palo's disclosure on page 15 means that multiple, separate reactors
are present as argued. Rather, De Palo teaches a single reactor with two
reaction zones.
Appellants argue that there is no reason to combine Gao' s two
catalysts with De Palo's process because each reference discloses forming a
heterophasic composition having good mechanical properties (App. Br. 16-
17). Appellants contend that Gao does not teach that the heterophasic
polymer produced has superior properties to that made by the catalyst
system of De Palo (Reply Br. 8).
5
Appeal2015-000471
Application 12/305,217
Contrary to Appellants' argument, Gao teaches that the propylene
polymers produced have "superior mechanical properties than those
produced by using a single catalyst component, for example, said propylene
polymers have higher crystallization temperature, melt strength and flexural
strength and the like, while also having better hydrogen response." (Gao
translation, 14:22-25). Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence
favors the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to
combine Gao's two catalyst system with De Palo's process in order to
produce propylene polymer having better mechanical properties than the
polymer made using De Palo's single catalyst process.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejection over De Palo
in view of Gao, Kashiwa and Chinese Patent.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision 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)(l).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
6