Appeal 2007-0217
Application 10/711,278
with coating not only of titania particles (See col. 17, lines 4-5) but also
titanium oxide coated with a silicon oxide (See col. 17, line 6)” (Answer 11,
last ¶). Also, the Examiner correctly explains that Katoh is concerned with a
display medium, which includes a liquid crystal and an electrophoretic
migration device (Katoh col. 1, ll. 16-25).
Concerning all the § 103 rejections, we note that Appellants base no
arguments upon objective of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
Finally, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 35,
36, 39, and 40 over Herman. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s
factual finding that Herman discloses a process for preparing polymer-
coated titanium oxide pigment particles which comprises adding an
anchoring agent having polar groups that are strongly absorbed on the
pigment surface, and a polymerizable group that is copolymerizable with a
monomer. Appellants maintain that the anchoring agent of Herman “is
simply adsorbed on to the titania surface by ionic interactions and is not
bonded to the surface via a covalent bond, as required by present claims 35
and 39-40” (Br. sentence bridging pp. 20-21). However, Appellants have
not refuted the Examiner’s reasoning that is well known in chemistry that
the OH-group-containing titanium dioxide surface chemically bonds with
the COOH groups of Herman’s anchoring agent. Furthermore, we agree
with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret
“strongly adsorbed” to include the formation of a covalent bond in view of
Katoh’s teaching referenced by the Examiner wherein the terms covalent
bonding and chemical adsorption are used interchangeably.
As a final point, in the event of further prosecution of the subject
matter at bar, such as by way of a continuing application, the Examiner
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007