Appeal 2006-2968
Application 10/039,481
processes in general, as opposed to achieving such desiderata for one
particular process but not another.
In support of written description compliance, the Appellant refers to
various disclosures in the Specification and Drawing which describe
achieving the earlier discussed desiderata. Clearly, however, these
disclosures do not expressly describe the specific methods discussed above
which are encompassed by the rejected claims. Moreover, while the
Appellant contends that an artisan would understand the application
disclosure to include such specific methods, no evidence of any kind has
been submitted in support of this contention.
Under these circumstances, it is our determination that the Examiner
has established a prima facie case of non-compliance with the written
description requirement of § 112 which the Appellant has failed to rebut
with persuasive argument or evidence to the contrary. We hereby sustain,
therefore, the Examiner's § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 32-46.
The § 103 Rejections
With respect to each of these rejections, the Examiner states that
Uytterhoeven does not disclose a pigmented polymer and does not disclose a
charge director in the process of making liquid toner (Answer 6, 9). The
Examiner relies on the additionally applied references to support his
conclusion that it would have been obvious for an artisan to use in the toner
producing method of Uytterhoeven pigmented polymer particles (e.g., rather
than carbon black particles) as well as a charge director. In the Examiner's
view, an artisan would have so combined the applied reference teachings in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013