Appeal No. 1997-3169
Application 08/211,791
therefore, the significance of any differences shown between the
properties of the pigments is questionable. Second, as explained
in our decision (pages 7-8), the teaching by Itoh that coating
TiO2 with the disclosed materials improves resistance against
chalking and discoloring and, therefore, reasonably appears to
improve gloss, indicates that the improved luster of appellants’
pigment would have been expected by one of ordinary skill in the
art. Third, as explained in our decision (pages 8-9), the
evidence in the declaration is not commensurate in scope with the
claims. Appellants argue (request, page 2) that Itoh does not
suggest applying a metal oxide coating after fragmenting the
pigment. As discussed above, however, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been led by Itoh to coat a pigment after it
has been fragmented so that the entire surface of each pigment
particle is provided with the disclosed resistance to chalking
and discoloring.
Appellants argue that the board improperly overlooked the
reply brief because its nonentry is not an option for the
examiner (request, page 2). The propriety of the nonentry of a
reply brief is a petitionable matter rather than an appealable
matter. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1002.02(c)(8)
(7th ed., rev. 1, Feb. 2000). Because the reply brief was not
-4-4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007