Appeal No. 2001-1966
Application 09/140,846
particles 15 of disclosed Figure 1 in turn may be considered
to be a first capsule.
Essentially, we find that the applied prior art for each of
these separately stated rejections does not teach or suggest the
suspending fluid of independent claim 1 on appeal and the "second
capsule in a binder" as recited in independent claim 30 on
appeal.
As to the first stated rejection, the examiner apparently
considers the light valve 27 in representative Figure 5 of Saxe
as comprising the electrophoretic display of the preamble of
representative claim 1 on appeal. The examiner considers the
claimed capsule to be the dark droplets/globules/microdroplets
26, which element comprises "particles" 21. Note also the
showings in various Figures 6 through 8B of Saxe. These
particles 21 per se are not taught to be or to contain a liquid
as required by independent claim 1 on appeal. The examiner
relies upon the expansive teaching at column 7, lines 55-60 that
any type of particle may be used for the particle 21 of the
invention in Saxe, thus yielding the examiner's view that it
would have been obvious to have utilized the particles 1 of
Chang. The examiner considers these particles 1 of Chang to be
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007