Appeal No. 94-2441
Application 07/821,314
through 14, 16 through 18, 20 and 21 . In the Answer, the 2
examiner allowed claims 17 and 19 and indicated that claims 3, 73
and 12 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
Accordingly, remaining for our consideration is the appeal from
the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 6, 8 through 11, 13, 14,
16, 18, 20 and 21.
Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below:
1. A liquid developer for use in electrophotography
comprising:
a toner comprising as the main toner components a colorant
and a polyolefin resin having an acid value of from 5 to 50 and a
melt viscosity at 200EC of from 100 to 15,000 cps; and
an aliphatic hydrocarbon carrier liquid in which said toner
is dispersed.
The sole reference now relied upon by the examiner is:
El-Sayed et al. (El-Sayed) 4,798,778 Jan. 17, 1989
The appealed claims stand rejected for obviousness (35
U.S.C. § 103) in view of El-Sayed.
We affirm.
2The rejection of appealed claim 21 was inadvertently
omitted from the examiner’s statement of rejection in the final
rejection.
3Claim 19 was allowed by the examiner in the final
rejection.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007