Appeal 2007-1855
Application 10/815,650
We do not find in the record scientific argument or evidence
supporting Appellants’ contention that the subjective evaluations of the
image imparted by the claimed toner composition as disclosed in the
Specification and by the toner compositions described by Machida as
disclosed therein do not provide a reasonable basis for comparison of the
claimed and prior art toners. We do not find in the Specification any
disclosure that Appellants employed any standard other than that used in the
art for the visual emulation of the same image properties visually evaluated
by Machida with the use of a commercial chart for this purpose as the
Examiner points out. Indeed, Appellants rely on the same methodologies in
subjectively visually evaluating image copy obtained in Specification
Comparative Example 1 and in Moriyama Declaration Comparative
Example asserted to distinguish the claimed toner compositions over those
of Machida.
On this record, we are not convinced the evidence in Specification
Comparative Example 1 and in the Moriyama Declaration Comparative
Example patentably distinguishes the claimed toner compositions
encompassed by claim 1 over those of Machida. On this record, we
determine the difference in reported results between Specification
Comparative Example 1 and the Moriyama Declaration Comparative
Example, particularly evinced by a difference in dielectric loss tangent (tan
δ), constitutes no more than the result expected from a difference in the
manner in which the same ingredients were processed in forming the two
toner compositions. Indeed, as disclosed in the Specification, differences in
processing affects the dielectric loss tangent (tan δ) of the toner composition
and thus, the image quality produced (Specification 11:23-12:7; see above p.
19
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013