Appeal No. 1996-1371
Application 08/221,595
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Sacripante et al. (Sacripante) 5,348,832 Sept. 20, 1994
Alexandrovich et al. (Alexandrovich) 4,837,393 June 6, 1989
Handbook of Imaging Materials, Diamond, Ed., Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, N.Y., pp.
163-176 (1991). (Diamond)
Grounds of Rejection
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, and 14-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and (f). As
evidence of anticipation, the examiner relies upon Sacripante.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 14-19, 25, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Sacripante.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 14-19, 25, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Sacripante, Alexandrovich and Diamond.
We reverse.
Background
The applicants' invention, as presently claimed, is described at pages 8-9 of the
specification as being directed to toner and developer compositions which include a resin,
pigment particles, and a polymer having chemically attached thereto a known charge
functional moiety such as a sulfo group. As claimed, the charge enhancing additive is a
polyester polymer with a charge enhancing moiety chemically attached to the polymer
wherein the attached moiety is selected from a specified group of sulfoisophthalates.
Discussion:
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007