Appeal No. 1997-1515
Application 08/361,891
makes the surfaces of the particles wet and sticky such that
bridging is facilitated under the applied electric force (col.
2, lines 29-36). The examiner has not explained, and it is
not apparent, why a dispersion containing particles which have
such a characteristic would be suitable for use in an
electrophoretic display as required by appellant’s claim 49.
We note that even if the Ahmed process prior to the water
doping step is considered, the examiner has not explained, as
discussed above, why Ahmed would have fairly suggested, to one
of ordinary skill in the art, a process including the steps
recited in appellant’s claim 49 of introducing and
polymerizing a second monomer and a functional monomer such
that a fluid is produced which is suitable for use in an
electrophoretic display, and of separating the particles from
the dispersion medium and dispersing the particles in a
dielectric nonpolar solvent.
For the above reasons, the examiner has not set forth a
factual basis which is sufficient to support a conclusion of
obviousness of the invention recited in appellant’s claim 49.
Consequently, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of this
claim and the dependent claims.
-10-10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007