Ex Parte Krizan - Page 2


           Appeal No. 2006-1144                                                                    
           Application No. 09/975,806                                                              

                 The examiner relies upon the following references in the                          
           rejections of the appealed claims:                                                      
           Alessandroni    2,212,629   Aug. 27, 1940                                               
           Dietz     3,549,396   Dec. 22, 1970                                                     
           Kreth et al. (Kreth)  4,885,034   Dec.  5, 1989                                         

                 Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a pigment                            
           composition, and the method of making it, comprising TiO2 and                           
           barium sulfate in the recited amounts.  The barium sulfate                              
           serves to stabilize and act as an anti-agglomeration agent for                          
           the TiO2.                                                                               
                 Appealed claims 1, 3, 4 and 10 stand rejected under                               
           35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kreth.  The appealed                         
           claims also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:                         
                 (a)  claims 8, 11, 13, 16 and 18-22 over Kreth,                                   
                 (b)  claims 5, 6, 13-15 and 17 over Kreth in view of Dietz,                       

                 Alessandroni, and                                                                 
                 (d)  claims 1-5, 9, 10 and 23 over Kreth in view of                               
                 Alessandroni.                                                                     
                 We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant’s arguments                         
           for patentability.  However, we find ourselves in complete                              


                                                 2                                                 


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007