Appeal 2007-1025
Application 10/658,811
specificity” to establish anticipation. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical
Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 999, 78 USPQ2d 1417, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The issue presented for review with respect to this rejection is: Does
the Tanaka reference have a disclosure that anticipates the claimed subject
matter? We answer this question in the affirmative.
The Examiner finds that Tanaka describes a toner for developing
electrostatic images comprising as a main component a binder resin having a
copolymer consisting of a high transition glass temperature monomer, a low
transition glass temperature monomer, and a hydrophilic monomer. The
Examiner points to claim 11 of Tanaka as describing the binder component
(Answer 3-4). Appellants have not disputed the Examiner’s factual findings.
Appellants contend that Tanaka does not teach in discrete
embodiments the binder component of the claimed toner (Br. 10).
Appellants’ contention is not persuasive. Appellants acknowledge that
Tanaka’s claim 11 describes a copolymer comprising methyl
methacrylate/iso-butyl methacrylate/methacrylic acid copolymer.
Appellants have not argued on the written record that this copolymer does
not contain a high Tg monomer, a low Tg monomer, and a hydrophilic
monomer. 3, 4 Rather, Appellants argue that Tanaka does not disclose that
3 The claimed invention refers to the glass transition temperature (Tg) of a
monomer. However, the glass transition temperature (Tg) is the temperature
at which an amorphous polymer is transformed from a viscous or rubbery
condition to a relatively hard brittle condition. Appellants have not
presented information regarding the methods for determining glass transition
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013