Appeal No. 94-0822
Application No. 07/801,992
is at best speculative to assert that in fact the polymer
coats pigment, rather than vice-versa." Manifestly, this
statement by the examiner undermines his conclusion of
inherency. As noted above, it is the examiner's burden to
establish the inherency which he propounds.
We also do not understand the examiner's statement that
"[t]he ZP of a component in a mixture is not claimed, and is
not at issue in this case" (page 20 of Answer). We note that
claim 4 specifically recites:
[T]he zeta potential of the polymeric latex
particles in the aqueous medium being greater in
absolute value than the zeta potential of the
titanium dioxide particles in the aqueous medium,
the absolute value of the difference in the zeta
potential of the titanium dioxide particles and the
zeta potential of the polymeric latex particles
being at least about 30 mv. [Emphasis added].
While the claim does not define the specific zeta potentials
of the titanium dioxide particles and the polymeric latex
particles, the issue emphasized by appellants in their Brief
is the difference in the absolute values of the two particles.
The examiner states the following at page 22 of the
Answer:
The Examiner agrees that Visca does not disclose a
process for adding inorganic pigment particles to a
dispersion of a polymer. Accordingly, Visca does
not render the claims of Group A obvious.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007