Ex parte GRANDE et al. - Page 8




                Appeal No. 1997-1801                                                                                                           
                Application 08/351,162                                                                                                         


                         Applicants also argue that the toners of the prior art and the toner’s made according to applicant’s                  
                process are different.   In support of this position applicants present two declarations, both by Dr. Edward                   
                J. Gutman, one of the named inventors.  In order to overcome, the prima facie case, the applicant must                         
                present evidence establishing that the prior art products are different than the products claimed.  Thorpe,                    
                777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966; Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d at 70, 205 USPQ at 596; Best, 562 F.2d at                               
                1255, 195 USPQ at 433-34; Brown, 459 F.2d at 535, 173 USPQ at 688.  Neither of  Dr. Gutman’s                                   
                declarations show that the products described in the prior art are different than products made according                      
                to the process of applicants claims.  Dr. Gutman’s declarations may show that for the specific brown                           
                colored toner compositions described in the declarations, toners that are made by separate grinding                            
                followed by mixing may have some different characteristics then toners that are made using grinding and                        
                mixed simultaneously.  However, applicant’s burden is to show that the prior art toners are different than                     
                those made by applicant’s process.  Applicant’s declarations do not show that the two-color toners                             
                described by Tomanek, Nakano and Anderson would  have different characteristics if made according to                           
                the process in claim 13.                                                                                                       
                                                                      D.                                                                       
                         The rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed.                                                  
                                                                     IV.                                                                       
                         The examiner also entered rejections of claims 1-5 and 7-14 under  35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                              
                unpatentable over the combination of Anderson and Nakamura and of claims 1-3 and 6-14 under                                    
                35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Nakano and Nakamura. We reverse these                               
                rejections.                                                                                                                    
                         Claim 1 requires the step of  “grinding a mixture of pellets of at least one color toner material and                 
                pellets of at least one other color toner material . . . .”  Neither Anderson nor Nakano teach the step of                     
                grinding a mixture of different color toner pellets as required by the claims.  The Nakamura reference                         

                                                                      8                                                                        





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007