Appeal No. 2006-1144
Application No. 09/975,806
agreement with the examiner’s reasoned analysis and application
of the prior art, as well as the examiner’s cogent disposition
of the arguments raised by appellant. Accordingly, we will
adopt the examiner’s reasoning as our own in sustaining the
rejections of record, and we add the following for emphasis
only.
We consider first the examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims
1, 3, 4 and 10 over Kreth. There is no dispute that Kreth, like
appellant, describes a pigment composition comprising TiO2 and
barium sulfate, with the amount of barium sulfate preferably
being in the range of 5 to 15% by weight. Manifestly, the
amount of barium sulfate described by Kreth falls directly
within the broader range claimed by appellant. Also, since we
find that Kreth fairly describes a pigment composition
comprising only TiO2 and barium sulfate, it follows that the
reference composition preferably has an amount of TiO2 in the
range of 95-85% by weight, a range that also falls directly
within the claimed range. Consequently, we agree with the
examiner that Kreth describes within the meaning of § 102 a
pigment composition comprising TiO2 and barium sulfate wherein
the amount of barium sulfate is a stabilizing and anti-
agglomeration effective amount, as presently claimed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007