Appeal No. 2000-0812 Page 5
Application No. 08/989,469
mailed October 1, 1999) for the Examiner’s complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 13,
filed August 4, 1999) and the reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed
December 1, 1999) for Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to Appellants’ specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by Appellants and the Examiner. After
careful review of the evidence before us, it is our conclusion
that the evidence provided by the Examiner is insufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 through
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants argue that Vrancken does not teach or suggest
the recited features related to the polydispersity of the
hydrophobic thermoplastic polymer particles while Coppens
merely suggests homodispersity or polydispersity of the image
[forming] grains in a lithographic plate. In particular,
Appellants assert that one skilled in the art would not
combine teachings related to a chemical image development with
that of a physical image formation process (brief, pages 5 &
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007