Appeal No. 1996-1371
Application 08/221,595
acknowledges that Sacripante does not disclose such a three component toner
composition. We are aware of the disclosure at column 6, lines 10-16 which would appear
to describe a three component toner composition. However, this described toner
composition requires a charge control additive in addition to the sulfonated polyester
polymer which serves as the charge control additive in the claimed composition. Further,
this description fails to define the charge enhancing agent in a manner which would
reasonably be read to encompass the polymer required by the claim. A claim is
anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either
expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v.
Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484
U.S. 827 (1987). Here, the reference does not disclose a three component toner
composition wherein the charge enhancing polyester has a chemically attached moiety
selected from the claim designated group of sulfoisophthalates. Thus, it fails to anticipate
the rejected claims. Therefore the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 are reversed.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 14-19, 25, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sacripante alone or in combination with Alexandrovich and Diamond.
Since the rejection of the claims over Sacripante alone is subsumed by the rejection over
the combination of Sacripante, Alexandrovich, and Diamond, we will limit our discussion to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007