Appeal No. 1997-0646
Application 08/383,667
1 (answer, pages 6-9). The examiner, however, does not
explain why these terms would have caused appellants’ claim 1,
when interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light
of appellants’ specification and the prior art, to fail to set
out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. We therefore reverse
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Carter discloses working fluids for electrophoretic image
display devices (col. 1, lines 5-6). The fluids include at
least two species of finely divided opaque particles, wherein
the particles are transportable within a suspension medium
under the influence of an electric field, the species and the
suspension medium are of contrasting colors, and the species
are adapted to acquire opposite charges (col. 1, lines 8-27).
Carter states that charge control agents can be incorporated
into the working fluid (col. 4, lines 12-14), but does not
provide any details regarding the charge control agents. The
finely divided opaque particles are coated with a compound
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007