Appeal 2006-2507
Application 10/106,473
Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-4, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(“Applicant's conclusory statements” were insufficient to make a showing
that “the claimed invention exhibits some superior property or advantage
that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would find surprising or
unexpected.”).
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 23 is affirmed.
Claim 39
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kmiecik-Lawrynowicz in view of Lundy. The Examiner found that
Kmiecik-Lawrynowicz discloses the invention as claimed with the exception
of a specific disclosure of a combination of carbon black and magnetite
(Answer 7). The Examiner relies on Lundy for a teaching that a
combination of magnetite and carbon black is effective to give a magnetic
toner with sufficient black coloring. Id. According to the Examiner:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the ad [sic, art] at the time the invention was made to add a
[sic] combine a carbon black dispersion with the magnetite
dispersion when using magnetite as the colorant in Kmiecik-
Lawrynowicz because Kmiecik-Lawrynowicz teaches
that magnetite colorant dispersion and carbon black colorant
dispersion may be used in the toner process in combination
while Lundy teaches that when magnetites are used in a color
toner carbon black is usefully included to improve the black
color of the toner. Thus, the artisan would have found it
obvious to produce two dispersion[s] according to Kmiecik-
Lawrynowicz, one with carbon black and one with magnetite
such as the commercially available M08029, and add these
dispersion at the colorant addition stage of Kmiecik-
Lawrynowicz 's invention.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007