11281953 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 1, 2010)

Ex Parte Molaire

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 1, 2010

11281953 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 1, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte MICHEL F. MOLAIRE ____________ Appeal 2009-008422 Application 11/281,953 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Decided: June 1, 2010 ____________ Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellant requests reconsideration of our Decision of January 15, 2010, wherein we affirmed the Examiner’s rejections of the appealed claims under 35 § U.S.C. 103(a). We have thoroughly reviewed the arguments set forth in Appellant’s request. However, we are not persuaded by such arguments that our decision was in error. We remain convinced that the appealed claims would Appeal 2009-008422 Application 11/281,953 2 have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning § 103 in view of the applied prior art. At the outset, we note that we did not overlook the arguments in Appellant’s brief regarding claims 8 and 17. In reaching our decision to affirm the Examiner’s rejections we thoroughly reviewed each of the arguments set forth by Appellant. Appellant maintains that if the co-crystal mixture of Molaire ‘885 is substituted for the high speed pigments of Molaire ‘189, the result would be a pigment mixture that does not comprise the low speed pigment of claims 8 and 17. Appellant points out that the low speed pigment of these claims is taught as the high speed pigment of Molaire ‘189. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the co-crystal of Molaire ‘885 for the low speed pigment of Molaire ‘189 and thereby render the high speed pigment of Molaire ‘189 as the low speed pigment relative to the high speed co-crystal of Molaire ‘885. As explained by the Examiner, Molaire ‘885 specifically teaches that “the co-crystals of their invention have higher photosensitivities and are faster than either of the crystals employed in the invention of ‘189” (Ans. 7, first sent.). Appellant has not refuted the Examiner’s rationale that “since the co- crystals behave as a single pigment, and not as two separate pigments, and since they are taught to have superior properties to the exact same pigments used by Molaire ‘189, it would have been obvious to have substituted these superior pigments for the high and low speed pigments of Molaire ‘189” (Ans. 26, first para.). Also, as noted by the Examiner, “[t]he terms high speed and low speed are relative to the pigments employed” (Ans. 21, first Appeal 2009-008422 Application 11/281,953 3 para.). Appellant also has not rebutted the Examiner’s rationale that “since the speed of a pigment is relative to the speed of the pigment it is combined with, the examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the pigments taught by Molaire ‘766 could be used as high or low speed pigments” (id.). Accordingly, Appellant’s Request is granted to the extent we have reconsidered our decision, but is denied with respect to making any change therein. DENIED kmm PAUL A. LEIPOLD PATENT LEGAL STAFF EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY 343 STATE STREET ROCHESTER, NY 14650-2201