Appeal 2006-2854
Application 10/348,165
‘363/ Chen ‘363 in view of Hair /further in view of Seul and further in view
of Yamaguchi.
IX. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-30, and 43-44 stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as
unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-21, 24, 36-38, and 40-46 of US Patent
6,964,747.
Prior Art Rejections
Issue
Has the Examiner identified the portions of the references that teach
or suggest the process of the presently claimed invention? More
specifically, has the Examiner identified any teaching or suggestion in the
cited references that indicates controlling the amount of dye incorporated
into microparticles is achieved by controlling a tuning solvent? We answer
these questions in the negative.
Analysis
The subject matter of independent claims 1 and 9 relates to methods
of generating a plurality of microparticle populations of different dye
concentrations where dye is loaded into polymer microparticles to generate
said microparticle populations. Each of the claims utilize a three-solvent
(ternary) system wherein the extent of the loading of the dye into the
microparticles is controlled by adjusting the solvency of the suspension by
controlling the amount of tuning solvent utilized. Thus, in order to achieve a
new color variation, the amount of dye incorporated into the microparticle is
controlled by increasing or decreasing the amount of tuning solvent utilized
in the suspension.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013