Appeal No. 1998-1353 Page 4
Application No. 08/488,288
3. Claims 1 and 5-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perry or
Browning.
OPINION
We reverse all of the rejections for the following reasons.
The Rejection over Kaliski
Kaliski describes forming aggregate-TiO pigment products containing at least 50, preferably
2
more than 77, parts by weight particulate TiO and 0.1 to 23 parts by weight cements/adhesives, i.e.
2
binder (col. 12, lines 37-43). The TiO particulate is “derived from prior art TiO pigment products in2 2
the state 'as is,' or comminuted further, beyond the limits of comminution practiced in the prior art.”
(col. 11, lines 16-24). While Kaliski indicates that TiO raw materials suitable for synthesizing the
2
aggregates include the ultrafine type, which are “almost monodisperse” or “highly disperse ”, Kaliski 3
does not describe a free flowing powder of agglomerates containing monodisperse TiO having a
2
surface modified by covalently bonded organic groups as required by claim 1. The Examiner states in
the rejection (Substitute Examiner’s Answer, pages 5-6) that “[t]he addition of organophilic
components to modify the surface of the particles as recited in the last line of claim 1 is addressed in
column 41, lines 33-66 et al.” (Substitute Answer, page 5, last line to page 6, line 2). We agree with
3We note that the tenor of the disclosure as a whole indicates that “highly disperse” may be
better interpreted as “highly monodisperse.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007