Appeal No. 2000-0812 Page 6
Application No. 08/989,469
6). Furthermore, Appellants argue that knowing benefits of
uniform particle size for silver halide photography does not
mean that the same particle size relationship applies to image
forming by physical processes (brief, page 6), and thus, is
not sufficient to show obviousness (brief, page 7).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner
recognizes that Coppens does not expressly teach the claimed
thermoplastic polymer particles. However, the Examiner
concludes (answer, page 5) that “one of ordinary skill in the
art would realize that the benefits of uniformity of grain
size in silver halide printing plates would provide similar
benefits in physical image formation printing plates.” The
examiner further points out that the claimed polydispersity of
less than 0.2 is considered to be similar to monodispersity of
the grains in Coppens (answer, page 6).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The conclusion that the
claimed subject matter is obvious must be supported by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007