Appeal No. 2001-0600
Application No. 08/584,776
2. Claims 2-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the admitted state of the art as applied to
claim 1 and further in view of Rambach, Koller, Eugster, Sommer
or Hashimoto.1
We reverse as to both grounds of rejection.
Background
The invention relates to a crystal modification ($ modifi-
cation) of a known dye having the formula
Specification, page 1.
Various crystal modifications of this known dye are
disclosed in JP ‘931 and EP‘ 161. Specification, page 1, lines
18-20 and 27-28. According to appellants, these known
modifications are unstable and also exhibit various technical
defects, particularly during handling. See id., page 2, lines
10-14. Appellant has found that the $-modification of the dye
1 The examiner’s statement of the rejection further includes Optiz,
Buhler and Veb I or II as secondary references. See Examiner’s answer, paper
no. 15, mailed January 21, 1998, page 6. The rejection of the claims based on
these references has, however, been withdrawn. See Final rejection, paper no.
6, mailed April 23, 1997; Examiner’s answer, page 2, paragraph (6) (indicating
that appellant’s statement of the issues in the Appeal brief, paper no. 15,
received November 28, 1997, is correct).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007