Appeal No. 2003-2157
Application No. 09/885,311
OPINION
A. The Rejection over Crystal
As discussed above, the claims stand or fall together for this
ground of rejection. Thus, we limit our consideration to claim 1
on appeal in deciding this ground of rejection. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(2000).
The examiner finds that Crystal discloses a toner comprising
two incompatible polymers, one being a “tough” polymer that serves
as a matrix and corresponds to the primary resin of appealed
claim 1, and the second polymer being a “soft” polymer present as
a plurality of discrete domains inside the matrix that includes
polyolefin waxes corresponding to the release agents as recited in
appealed claim 1 (Answer, pages 4-5). The examiner also finds that
Crystal teaches the use of a compatibilizer (i.e., a dispersing
agent) to improve dispersion of the domain in the matrix, with one
component of the compatibilizer being compatible with the matrix
polymer and another component being compatible with the domain
polymer (Answer, page 4). Finally, the examiner finds that Crystal
specifically discloses that a “shaded random” copolymer, a type
of random copolymer, is effective as a compatibilizer (id.).
Appellants do not contest any of the examiner’s factual
findings (see the Brief in its entirety). The sole issue with
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007