Appeal 2006-2511
Application 10/693,463
The Examiner asserts that Stephens discloses the claimed blue color
based on the disclosure appearing in column 6 and Table 1 (Answer 3). The
Examiner further asserts that the ratio of copper to manganese disclosed in
Stephens meets the molar ratio of the claimed invention.1
For the purposes of anticipation, we must rely upon the interference
pigments described in Tables 1 and 2. However, we cannot conclude that
the claimed subject matter is anticipated by these teachings of Stephens.
With respect to the disclosure of the color values produced by the
disclosed interference pigments, one would have to choose from the seven
colors produced in Tables 1 and 2. In addition, Stephens discloses that these
colors were achieved by coating the copper and manganese oxide on a
titanium dioxide (rutile)/mica pigment. In other words, the color values
appearing in Tables 1 and 2 are based upon a mica platelet-shaped substrate
not a glass substrate as required by the claims. Also, the ratio for copper and
manganese was adjusted to achieve the various color values described in
Tables 1 and 2. Thus, to arrive at the present invention one would have to
choose the glass flakes as the substrate in place of mica and choose the
appropriate ratio for copper and manganese to achieve the claimed blue
color. There is no indication that the same ratio for copper and manganese
used to achieve the color values on a mica substrate would have been the
same for a glass substrate. Based on the above findings, we conclude that in
order to arrive at the claimed subject matter, a person having ordinary skill
1 The Appellants have not challenged the Examiner's position regarding the
molar ratio. (See Brief generally).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007