Appeal 2007-2062
Application 10/360,263
With regard to the rejection based on § 103(a), Appellants contend
that there is no motivation in Schneider to use particles any smaller than 0.1
microns, nor any motivation to use particles substantially free of hydroxyl
groups on their surface (Br. 5).
The Examiner contends that the Schneider end point of “about 0.1
micron” reads on “less than 100 nm” by the definition of “about,” and the
amounts of particles in the reference will necessarily give the claimed
improvements in flow and leveling (Answer 3 and 5).
The Examiner contends that there is no showing that the filler
particles of Schneider have surface hydroxyl (OH) groups, while several
disclosed fillers would be expected to not have OH groups (Answer 5-6).
Accordingly, the issues presented from the record in this appeal are as
follows: (1) does any disclosure or teaching of particle size range in
Schneider anticipate or render obvious the claimed range of “less than 100
nm”?; (2) does any disclosure or teaching in Schneider anticipate or render
obvious that the particle surfaces are “substantially free” of OH functional
groups?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation and obviousness in view of the reference evidence, which prima
facie case has not been adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments.
Therefore we AFFIRM both rejections on appeal essentially for the reasons
stated in the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013