Appeal No. 1997-3392
Application 08/297,946
Accordingly, we find that the examiner has not carried
the burden of establishing that all of the limitations of the
appellants’ claim 25 are found in the applied reference.
Hence, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Cunningham discloses a process for making a toner having
a high molecular weight polymer contained in a matrix of lower
molecular weight polymer (col. 5, lines 55-62). Cunningham
teaches that “the starved feed monomer is not more hydrophilic
than the existing polymer/monomer particle to ensure that the
starved feed monomer diffuses into the interior of the
particle and does not form a shell around the exterior of the
particle” (col. 4, lines 7-11).
The examiner argues that Cunningham’s process steps and
materials are the same as those of the appellants and that,
therefore, the appellants’ toner morphologies must be obtained
using Cunningham’s process (answer, pages 9-10 and 18-24).
The appellants, however, disclose that variation of the
starting time of the starved feed addition can be used to
control the polymer morphology such that, inter alia, a
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007