Appeal 2006-2968
Application 10/039,481
order to obtain the stable (i.e., enhanced) particle charge associated with
Uytterhoeven's anionic polymer (i.e., ionomer) coating (Uytterhoeven 1-2)
and the benefits associated with the pigmented polymer particles and charge
director of the other applied references.
The Appellant argues that an artisan would have had no motivation to
use the pigmented polymer particles of the prior art (i.e., Whitbread or
Schaffert) as the coloring substance on which Uytterhoeven applies anionic
polymer (i.e., ionomer). Reply Br. 9-11. We do not agree.
A teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the relevant prior art
teachings does not have to be found explicitly in the prior art, as the
teaching, suggestion, or motivation may be implicit from the prior art as a
whole. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 cited with
approval in KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385
(2007).
An artisan would have been motivated to combine the reference
teachings in the proposed manner for the reason discussed above. This
determination is reinforced by the fact that Uytterhoeven expressly discloses
coating color substance particles of, not only carbon black but also, organic
pigment dyes (i.e., pigmented polymer particles). Uytterhoeven 11-12.
The Appellant's remaining arguments concerning various claim
features have been successfully rebutted by the Examiner on pages 17-19 of
the Answer, and we adopt these rebuttals as our own.
In light of the foregoing, we also sustain the § 103 rejection of claims
32-44 and 46 over Uytterhoeven, Whitbread, Diamond, Metcalfe, and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013