Appeal No. 96-3803
Application No. 08/128,245
would reasonably believe that the prior art and claimed
products share the same properties. Here, we are not
satisfied that the examiner has drawn the requisite
correspondence between the claimed product and the prior art
product.
The sole correspondence established by the examiner
between the prior art products and the claimed product is that
commercially-available AEROSIL and CAB-O-SIL is used for the
inorganic microparticles. However, as demonstrated at pages
15-17 of appellants' specification, including TABLE II, a
variety of types of fumed silica microparticles can be
employed that have
different properties regarding BET surface and methanol value.
Specification TABLE II demonstrates that microparticles having
properties within the claimed ranges produce better resolution
than toner compositions comprising microparticles having BET
surface and methanol values outside the claimed ranges.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007