Ex Parte Vandewinckel et al - Page 2

                Appeal 2007-4185                                                                               
                Application 10/743,097                                                                         

                      Claim 1 illustrates Appellants’ invention of a toner including toner                     
                particles, and is representative of the claims on appeal:                                      
                      1.  A toner including toner particles comprising a styrene acrylate                      
                binder and at least one colorant, and wherein the styrene acrylate binder has                  
                a weight average molecular weight of about 20 to about 30 kpse and a                           
                molecular peak of about 23 to about 28 kpse, the toner particles have a                        
                weight average molecular weight of about 28 to 130 kpse, a number average                      
                molecular weight of about 9 to about 13.4 kpse and a MWD of about 2.2 to                       
                about 10, and the toner particles have a cohesion of about 55 to about 98% at                  
                a mean circularity of about 0.94 to about 0.98.                                                
                      The Examiner considers the evidence in this reference:                                   
                Combes    US 6,673,501 B1    Jan. 6, 2004                                                      
                      Appellants request review of the ground of rejection claims 1 through                    
                19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing                    
                to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which                        
                applicants regard as the invention (Br. 7; Answer 3-8).                                        
                      Appellants argue the claims as a group, and thus, we decide this                         
                appeal based on claim 1.  37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).                                 
                The issue in this appeal is whether the Examiner has established that, prima                   
                facie,1 when the claim language “the toner particles have a cohesion of about                  
                55 to about 98% at a mean circularity of about 0.94 to about 0.98” of claim 1                  
                is considered as a whole as well as in view of the written description in the                  
                Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, the              
                claims in fact fail to set out and circumscribe a particular area with a                       
                                                                                                              
                1  The initial burden of establishing a prima facie case under § 112, second                   
                paragraph or any other statutory provision rests with the Examiner.  See                       
                In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.                            
                1992), (citing In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788                          
                (Fed. Cir. 1984)).                                                                             
                                                      2                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013