Appeal No. 1996-1178
Application No. 08/160,324
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the disclosure of Negata.
We have carefully reviewed the specification, claims and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by
both the examiner and appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that
the examiner’s § 102/103 rejection is well founded.
Accordingly, we will sustain the § 102/103 rejection for
substantially those reasons set forth in the Answer. We add
the following primarily for emphasis and completeness.
As evidence of unpatentability of claims 1 and 2 under
Section 102 or 103, the examiner relies on the disclosure of
Negata. The examiner finds, and appellants do not dispute,
that Nagata in its example 23 at column 8 describes "carbon
blacks having the claimed tint [value], CTAB and CTAB/iodine
value." Compare Answer, page 3, with Brief in its entirety.
We also note that the carbon blacks employed in example 23,
like appellants’ carbon blacks, are furnace carbon blacks.
Compare Negata, column 1, line 64, with specification, pages 7
and 10. Although Negata does not mention that its carbon
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007