Appeal 2007-0217
Application 10/711,278
Appellants do not set forth separate arguments for the groups of
claims separately rejected by the Examiner. Accordingly, the groups of
claims separately rejected by the Examiner stand or fall together.
We consider first the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1, 8-11, 14,
and 15 over Devenport or Sakai in view of Uytterhoeven. Appellants do not
dispute the Examiner’s factual determination that both Devenport and Sakai
disclose polymer-coated pigment particles within the scope of the appealed
claims. Rather, it is Appellants’ argument that Sakai does not teach or
suggest dispersing the polymer-coated pigment particles in a suspending
fluid to form an electrophoretic medium, and that there was no reason why
“a skilled person would attempt to use the Sakai particles in an
electrophoretic medium” (Br. 17, ¶ 3) .
We agree with the Examiner that the polymer-coated particles fairly
taught by Sakai would have been reasonably expected by one of ordinary
skill in the art to be suitable for forming a dispersion in a non-polar
suspending fluid to form an electrophoretic medium. As explained by the
Examiner, Sakai teaches that the outer polymer coating on the silica particles
may be a monofunctional vinyl monomer, such as styrene and acrylic acid
esters, e.g., methacrylate, propyl acrylate, etc. (Sakai, col. 12, et seq.).
Uytterhoeven, as acknowledged by Appellants, discloses polymer coated
particles that are dispersed in a non-polar carrier liquid to form an
electrophoretic medium and teaches, like Sakai, that the outer polymer layer
may be derived from non-ionic monomers such as alkyl styrenes and
alkyl acrylates (Sakai, col. 4, ll. 1 et seq.). Accordingly, since both Sakai
and Uytterhoeven disclose polymer-coated particles wherein the outer
polymer coating is derived from non-ionic monomers, such as styrene and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007