Appeal No. 96-3586
Application No. 08/262,848
sleeve and its outer layer or covering can, giving the
terminology of independent claim 14 its broadest reasonable
interpretation (In re Morris, supra, and In re Zletz, supra)
broadly be considered to be a "part."
The appellant also contends that there is no indication
in Lawson of "any mixture of ink with an etchant much less
with ink and an encapsulated etchant" (brief, page 6). We do
not agree.
Lawson states that
the pressure sensitive material is of the type
having micro-encapsulated material which ruptures
when impressed by a print character. The micro-
encapsulated material is preferably an etchant which
burns into a layer covering the etchant, thereby
burning a dark color into the covering from beneath.
Other micro-encapsulated material, such as a
colorant material, or
two different materials which produce a color when
mixed together by rupturing, may be used. [Col. 3,
lines 4-12; emphasis added.]
In our view, the reference by Lawson to the "other
encapsulated material" as being a "colorant material," if not
teaching, would at least fairly suggest to the artisan that 4
4The issue of obviousness is not only determined by what
the references expressly state but also is determined by what
they would fairly suggest to those of ordinary skill in the
art. See, e.g., In re DeLisle, 406 F.2d 1386, 1389, 160 USPQ
806, 808-09 (CCPA 1969) and In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390,
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007