Appeal 2007-2677
Application 10/622,229
Darsillo indicating that treating silica with cationic modifiers such as an
inorganic salt (e.g., aluminum chlorohydrate), a silane, or a polymer (e.g.,
polyamine polymer) is “sometimes preferred.”3 Darsillo 5:1-10.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in concluding that the invention of claim 1 would have been
obvious in view of the teachings in Darsillo. Claims 10 and 13-21 stand
with claim 1.
2. Rejection based on Darsillo, Bi, and Alexander
The Examiner finds that Bi discloses treating silica particles with a
hydroxyl-containing polyvalent metal salt or a cationic resin to make them
cationic for inclusion in an ink jet recording sheet. The Examiner finds that
Bi discloses that an example of a hydroxyl-containing polyvalent metal salt
is disclosed in Alexander. The Examiner finds that Figure 1 in Alexander
shows a silica surface that has been complexed with a metal oxyhydroxy
material within the scope of the Appellants’ claimed invention. The
Examiner concludes that the combined teachings of Darsillo, Bi, and
Alexander render the claimed invention obvious. Answer 5-6.
Referring to the individual teachings of Darsillo, Bi, and Alexander,
the Appellants argue that these references, either alone or in combination, do
not teach or suggest the claimed invention. Brief 8-9.
A rejection based on a combination of references cannot be overcome
by attacking the references individually. The Appellants have failed to
explain why the combined teachings of Darsillo, Bi, and Alexander do not
render the claimed invention obvious. Furthermore, we find the Appellants’
3 “Appendix II – Evidence” attached to the Appellant’s Brief contains two
articles on gloss. No other evidence is contained in the appendix.
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013