Appeal No. 1996-1371
Application 08/221,595
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
In rejecting claims 1, 7, 8, 10, and 14-19, the examiner cites Sacripante as
disclosing (Answer, page 3):
the preparation of toner from resin such as given in the Examples and as
discussed in column 10 which are mixed with pigment (col.9), and other
optional surface additives (col.9). The toner may be mixed with coated
carrier particles (see Examples) to produce a developer which is used in an
imaging process where an electrostatic image is developed by the toner and
the toner image transferred to a support (see Examples).
While acknowledging that Sacripante does not disclose a three component toner
composition (Answer, paragraph bridging pages 3-4), the examiner urges that Sacripante
does disclose a two component toner composition which includes a pigment and a charge
enhancing additive, where the charge enhancing additive serves two functions, i.e. the
charge enhancing additive is both the resin particles and the polymer which acts as the
charge enhancing additive. (Answer, page 4).
We have carefully considered the evidence and reasoning presented by the
examiner. However, on this record we are constrained to conclude that the examiner has
failed to provide those facts or evidence which would reasonably support a conclusion that
the rejected claims are anticipated by Sacripante. Simply put, functionality is not the test of
anticipation. Here the claims require three components including a resin, a pigment and a
charge enhancing additive which is a polyester having a charge enhancing moiety
chemically attached thereto. The examiner
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007