Appeal No. 95-1250
Application 07/901,722
1257, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1984). This suggestion must be found in the prior art, not in applicant's
disclosure. In re Dow Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
After careful review of the prior art references cited by the examiner, none of the references are seen
to suggest the developer resin as set forth in the claims on appeal.
The developer resin disclosed by appellant is the reaction product of the phenolic resin taught
by Pokora with pyromellitic dianhydride (1,2,4,5-benzene tetracarbonxylic dianhydride). While
appellant acknowledges that phenol-formaldehyde condensates are widely used color developers,
appellant , like Pokora, points out that “[b]ecause such resins are prepared from formaldehyde, there
is a concern that they may be unsafe from both the standpoint of their manufacture and their use in
recording materials.” Pokora developed a formaldehyde free phenolic resin color developer.
According to appellant, the invention claimed herein is an improvement over Pokora’s resin.
The developer resin set forth in the claims on appeal requires an anhydride moiety comprising
at least four carboxyl groups. Hayashi teaches preparing a color developer which comprises an acidic
phenolic polymer and an organic carboxylic acid. The phenolic polymers contemplated by Hayashi
are phenolaldehyde polymers and phenol-acetylene polymers (col. 4, lines 6-19), neither of which are
within the scope of the claimed phenol polymers set forth in Pokora. The organic acids contemplated
by Hayashi contain up to three carboxyl groups (col. 3, lines 12-43). Hayashi does not teach or
suggest using anhydrides, let alone acids having at least four carboxyl
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007