Appeal No. 1997-3874
Application 08/446,295
As pointed out above with respect to the rejection over
Rausing in view of Taillie and either Schoder or Suzuki, the
examiner has not adequately explained why the applied prior
art would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to use
Taillie’s toner in Rausing’s method. Moreover, the examiner
does not explain why the applied references would have
motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to use Imperial’s
polymeric latex, which functions to hold toner onto a
substrate after the toner has been applied to the substrate by
a cold roll, to hold onto a substrate Taillie’s toner
particles which are thermally fused. Again, the examiner has
used impermissible hindsight in rejecting the claims.
Consequently, we reverse the rejection over Rausing in view of
Taillie and Imperial.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007