Appeal 2007-1205
Application 10/501,343
copending application No. 10/515,345. Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Gonzales-Blanco.
Claims 6 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gonzales-Blanco in view of Nyssen.
We affirm the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection
and reverse the anticipation and obviousness rejections. Our reasoning
follows.
We start with the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12, as
being anticipated by Gonzales-Blanco. The Examiner contends that
Gonzales-Blanco discloses pigment preparations, which anticipate appealed
claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12. Appellants contend that the preparation disclosed
in Gonzales-Blanco does not meet the independent claim 11 requirements for
a solid pigment preparation, the particular combinations of non-ionic and
anionic surface-active additives required in appealed claim 1, and/or
amounts thereof within the percentage ranges claimed.
Therefore, a dispositive question 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 non-ionic
and anionic 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.
1 Rejected claims 2-5 and 12 depend from claim 1. Method claims 7-10
require a process for forming the preparation of claim 1 or a process for
pigmenting with the claim 1 preparation.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013