Appeal No. 1999-1095
Application 08/751,632
However, nowhere does the appellants point out what findings
we allegedly failed to make. Evidently, the appellants simply
disagree with the findings we did make. In the full paragraph
on the middle of page 5 of the decision, and in response to
the appellants’ argument in the appeal brief that Ennis ‘429
does not teach use of a coloring agent in the sense of the
appellants’ invention because the coloring pigment of Ennis
‘429 has no color that is described, we specifically found
that Ennis ‘429 discloses use of a coloring agent as has been
claimed:
Ennis ‘429 generally refers to the addition of a
coloring pigment without particularly specifying the
color. That would have indicated to one with
ordinary skill in the art that the particular
coloring is not important, and that whatever color
is used would be fine so long as the light
transmissivity of the coloring pigment is between
that of water and oil. None of this makes Ennis
‘429's coloring pigment not a coloring agent. That
the coloring pigment in Ennis ‘429 is used for
changing light transmissivity and not so much for
providing a color does not disqualify it from being
a coloring agent. (Emphasis added.)
In the request for rehearing, the appellants re-present
the same argument which we have rejected, only in different
words:
As mentioned previously, the critical test for a §
103 rejection is whether Ennis ‘429 teaches or
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007