Appeal No. 2002-2036
Application 09/486,558
Claims 20-47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kalopissis in view of Clausen.
Appellants group the claims in one group (brief, page 3).
Hence, we consider claim 1 in this appeal. 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(8)(2000).
OPINION
Upon careful review of the entire record, including the
respective positions advanced by appellants (brief and reply
brief) and the examiner (examiner’s answer), we find ourselves in
agreement with the examiner and sustain the aforementioned
rejection for the following reasons.
Beginning on page 4 of the brief, appellants argue that
Kalopissis specifically teaches that the dye composition
according to the invention is characterized by the following
essential features: the dye composition must contain a
paraphenylenediamine or a paraaminophenol or a heterocyclic
oxidation base such as 2,5-diaminopyridine or 2-hydroxy-5-
aminopyridine. Appellants refer to column 2, lines 67 through
column 32, line 5 of Kalopissis.
On the other hand, on page 6 of the answer, the examiner
interprets this aspect of Kalopissis as teaching that a
conventional oxidation base is essential rather than that a
paraaminophenol is essential. Hence, this aspect of Kalopissis’
disclosure is in dispute.
Upon our view of Kalopissis, we find that Kalopissis,
beginning at column 2, line 67 through column 3, line 24,
discloses the following:
“The dye composition according to the invention are
characterized by the following essential features:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007