Appeal No. 1997-1752
Application No. 08/451,379
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we find
ourselves in agreement with appellants that the prior art
cited by the examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness for the claimed process. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejection.
The examiner correctly points out that Nash exemplifies
toner compositions comprising the claimed components,
including surface additives of zinc stearate and fumed silica
in the recited amounts. However, as urged by appellants, the
claimed invention presently on appeal defines a process for
preparing colored toners and developer compositions.
Significantly, whereas the appealed claims define a process of
mixing first and second toners wherein only the first toner
includes surface additives of zinc stearate and fumed silica,
the examiner points to no teaching in Nash regarding the
mixing of toners, let alone toners of different composition.
Consequently, in view of this lack of teaching or suggestion
by Nash of blending two toners having distinct compositions,
we do not agree with the examiner
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007