Appeal 2007-1855
Application 10/815,650
Machida discloses fogging can be visually determined as does the
Specification, and the Specification discloses visual observation of “thin-line
reproducibility” while Machida uses a commercial chart therefor (id. 23-24,
citing Specification at page 2, ll. 15-20, page 21,
ll. 10-16, and Table 1 art page 22, and Machida at 11:13-14).
Appellants reply that the Specification Examples and Machida’s
Working Examples use different amounts of different materials and thus, the
results in Machida cannot be attributed to a particular CV of the activated
carbon used, even if the CV was known, and the differences in
methodologies of evaluating results used for the criteria in the Specification
and Machida does not mean the charcoal powder of Machida meets the
claimed CV value (Reply Br. 3-4).
The issue in this appeal is whether it reasonably appears from the
record that the activated carbon particles disclosed by Machida in the toners
taught therein inherently have the volume-based medium particle size and
the CV based thereon specified in claim 1 necessary to establish a prima
facie case of anticipation and of obviousness in the grounds of rejection
maintained on appeal.
The plain language of claim 1 specifies any toner composition
comprising at least any amount of any resin binder and any amount of any
colorant, the latter comprising at least any amount of any manner of charcoal
powder that has the physical properties of a volume-based median particle
size (D50) of 5.6 µm or less, and a coefficient of variation of 80% or less.
The “charcoal powder” can include “[c]ommercially available products of
the wood-based and coconut-shell-based active carbons” such as, among
other things, “‘Shirasagi KA-2’ (commercially available from TAKEDA
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013