Appeal 2006-2507
Application 10/106,473
Kmiecik-Lawrynowicz et al. US 6,294,306 B1 Sep. 25, 2001
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over
Patel in view of Lundy and in further view of Kmiecik-Lawrynowicz
2. Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kmiecik-Lawrynowicz in view of Lundy.
We affirm as to both grounds of rejection.
DISCUSSION
Claim 23
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Patel in view of Lundy and in further view of Kmiecik-Lawrynowicz
The Examiner found that Patel discloses the invention as claimed, with the
exception of:
(1) “the claimed process where a colorant dispersion
comprising an acicular magnetite and a carbon black
dispersion are used as the colorant for combination with the
latex and wax dispersion” and
(2) “retaining the aggregates at a time of from 12 to about 20
hours.”
Answer 5. Lundy is relied on for a disclosure of toners that contain
magnetite particles (Answer 6). The Examiner relies on Kmiecik-
Lawrynowicz for a teaching of retaining aggregates at temperatures of 60 to
95 ˚C for about 1 to 10 hours to form toner particles having a size of about 1
to about 25 microns. Id. Appellants traverse the rejection of claim 23 on the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007