Appeal No. 1997-0666
Application 08/338,830
As evidence of obviousness of the herein claimed invention, the examiner relies on the
combined teachings of Barraclough and Leister. In traversing the stated rejection, appellants
argue that neither relied upon reference discloses the use of appellants' basic CuPc
component (b) as a deflocculating agent for any purpose, much less in combination with
appellants' component (a) mixture of a methylated copper phthalocyanines.
Respecting appellants' component (b) deflocculating agent, we observe that the
examiner, for the first time in the prosecution of this application, indicated (Supplemental
Answer at page 2) that the claim language defining appellants' deflocculating agent as
containing “up to four basic groups” selected from Formulae (1) and (2) includes “zero basic
groups.” Thus, without further explanation, the examiner apparently now considers component
(b) of the appealed claims as covering any copper phthalocyanine deflocculating agent. In
light of appellants' specification and the prosecution history of this application, we do not find
the examiner's claim construction to be reasonable. In the third paragraph of page 3 of the
specification, appellants indicate that a preferred deflocculating agent is a phthalocyanine,
especially CuPc, carrying acidic or basic groups. The specification goes on to state that the
deflocculating agent “preferably contains up to” four ... basic groups “such as” the groups
defined by Formula 1 and Formula 2 of the appealed claims. Although the claim language “up
to” includes zero as a lower limit, read in light of the other portion of the paragraph which
indicates that such deflocculating agents are especially” CuPc, carrying ... basic groups,” we
read the claims as the appellants have construed and argued them, i.e., as requiring the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007