Appeal 2007-0499
Application 10/515,345
We affirm the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection
and reverse the anticipation and obviousness rejections. Our reasoning
follows.
§ 102(b) Rejection
The Examiner contends that Gonzales-Blanco discloses pigment
preparations, which anticipate appealed claims 1-3, 5-8, and 11-20 (Answer
5). Appellants contend that the preparation disclosed in Gonzales-Blanco
does not meet the independent claim 12 requirements for a solid pigment
preparation, the particular combinations of anionic with or without anionic
surface-active additives required in appealed claim 1, and/or amounts
thereof within the percentage ranges claimed.
Therefore, the principal issue before us with respect to the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection is: Whether the Examiner has established that
Gonzales-Blanco describes a pigment preparation having all of the above-
argued features; that is, the preparation is solid and includes at least one
pigment and anionic surface-active additives with or without non-ionic
surface-active additives of the kind claimed and in the amounts claimed. We
answer that questioning in the negative. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection.
Here, the Examiner has not identified where in Gonzales-Blanco an
anticipatory description of a solid pigment preparation that includes all of
the above-identified claim features is provided. At best, the Examiner
maintains that “this reference does not explicitly disclose that Patentees’
2 Rejected claims 2-4, 9 and 10 depend from claim 1. Method claims 5-8
and 11-20 require a process for forming the preparation of claim 1 or a
process for pigmenting with the claim 1 preparation.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013