Appeal 2007-0217
Application 10/711,278
Devonport would have suggested the use in liquid electrophoretic developer
compositions of the type disclosed by Uytterhoeven.
Appellants have not set forth a separate substantive argument for the
§ 103 rejection of claims 13 and 15-18 over Devonport in view of
Uytterhoeven and Matyjasjewski.
We will also sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 35-42
over Katoh in view of Sakai for essentially those reasons expressed by the
Examiner. Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s factual finding that
Katoh discloses “a process for producing a polymer-coated pigment powder
20 for dispersing into a suspending fluid to form an electrophoretic medium
or liquid crystal device” (Answer 8, ¶ 3), and that the process includes
covalently bonding a polymeric layer 21, such as polymethacrylate, to the
surface of the pigment powder by coating, chemical adsorption using
Appellants’ silane coupling agent, vinyltriethoxysilane, or graft
polymerization. While Katoh does not expressly teach that the polymer
coating may be formed by copolymerizing a monomer with the
polymerizable group of a silane coupling agent, we fully concur with the
Examiner that Sakai evidences the obviousness of doing so. Appellants
contend that “[t]here is no logical reason why a skilled person, seeking to
improve the Katoh coated titania particles, would assume that Sakai is
relevant [since] Sakai is concerned solely with controlling the surface
properties of silica properties to render them more suitable for use as spacers
in liquid crystal displays, whereas Katoh is concerned with coating titanium
particles to adjust their relative affinities for two immiscible suspending
fluids (typically water and hydrocarbon) in an electrophoretic display” (Brief
20, ¶ 2) . However, as properly noted by the Examiner, “Katoh is concerned
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007