Appeal 2007-1025
Application 10/658,811
Regarding the rejections of claims 8-12, 14, 15, and 17 over Tanaka in
view of various secondary references, we affirm the rejections for the
reasons presented by the Examiner.5 Appellants argue that Tanaka does not
describe a binder component that meets the claimed invention. The
Appellants assert that each of the secondary references does not provide
teachings relating to the preparation of the binder resins comprising
copolymers of the specifically claimed monomer types. These arguments
are not persuasive because they do not address the rejections as set forth by
the Examiner. The Examiner did not rely on the secondary references for
describing the binder resin comprising the claimed copolymer. The
Examiner has provided factual determinations regarding the teachings of the
secondary references and the suitability of combining these teachings with
the Tanaka reference. Appellants have not argued that the references could
not be combined in the manner suggested by the Examiner.
Based on the record of this appeal, one with ordinary skill in this art at
the time of the invention would have had motivation to combine the cited
references based on the reasonable expectation that the toner composition of
Tanaka could comprise the features of the secondary references as suggested
by the Examiner.
5 Claims 11, 12, 14, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Diamond; claim 8 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tanaka, Diamond in view of
Shiraishi; claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Tanaka, Diamond in view of Carlson; and claims 9, 10, and 15 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tanaka, Carlson in
view of Kojima.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013