Ex parte BUGNON et al. - Page 2










                     (a) coating organic pigment particles, which are diketopyrrolopyrroles, with one or more films of a preformed polymer                                            
                     by adsorption of from 1 to 5% by weight of the polymer, based on the pigment, onto the surface of the pigment                                                    
                     particles at room temperature, the polymer being selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone                                                      
                     homopolymers and copolymers; and                                                                                                                                 

                     (b) admixing the coated pigment particles with a polyolefin.                                                                                                     

                     27.  A process for the warp-free pigmenting of polyolefins, which comprises:                                                                                     

                     (a) coating organic pigment particles, which are diketopyrrolopyrroles, with one or more films of a preformed polymer                                            
                     by adsorption of 1 to 10% by weight of the polymer, based on the pigment, onto the surface of the pigment particles                                              
                     at room temperature, the polymer being a polyvinylpyrrolidone-vinyl acetate copolymer; and                                                                       

                     (b) admixing the coated pigment particles with a polyolefin.                                                                                                     


                                                                    THE REFERENCES OF RECORD                                                                                          

                     As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon the following references.                                                                                   

                     Hopfenberg et al. 3,904,562                                     Sep.  9,  1975                                                                                   
                     (Hopfenberg)                                                                                                                                                     
                     Loch                            4,388,435                                  Jun. 14, 1983                                                                         
                     Martin               4,771,086                                  Sep. 13, 1988                                                                                    
                     Bugnon et al.        4,808,230                                  Feb. 28, 1989                                                                                    
                     (Bugnon)                                                                                                                                                         
                     Kamada et al.        4,957,949                                  Sep. 18, 1990                                                                                    
                     (Kamada)                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                              THE REJECTIONS                                                                                          

                     Claims 12, 19, 22, 24 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hopfenberg in view                                                  

                     of Kamada.                                                                                                                                                       

                     Claims 12, 19, 22, 24 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hopfenberg as                                                       

                     modified by Kamada as applied to claims 12, 19, 22, 24 and 26 above and further in view of Bugnon.                                                               

                     Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Martin as modified by Hopfenberg in                                                    

                     view of Bugnon and further in view of Loch.1                                                                                                                     





                                1                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                         2                                                                                            







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007