Ex parte USUI et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1996-3995                                                        
          Application 08/283,721                                                      


          specified amounts of a water-insoluble solvent dispersed or                 
          emulsified in an aqueous polymer solution containing specified              
          amounts of water soluble polymer (Brief, page 2).  Appellants               
          state that the oil-in-water (O/W) type emulsion of appellants’              
          invention is free from ink oozing when the treated fabric is                
          used with ink jet printing (Id.).  Claim 1 is illustrative of               
          the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below:                       
               A method for manufacturing a fabric for ink jet printing               
          comprising applying an aqueous dispersion or emulsion having a              
          water-insoluble solvent dispersed or emulsified in an aqueous               
          polymer solution containing water soluble polymer to the                    
          fabric and drying, wherein the content of said water-insoluble              
          solvent is 20 - 70% by weight of said aqueous dispersion or                 
          emulsion and a water soluble polymer content in said aqueous                
          dispersion or emulsion is 1/2.5 - 1/20 of the weight of the                 
          water-insoluble solvent.                                                    
               The examiner has relied upon the following reference in                
          support of the rejections:                                                  
          Handa et al. (JP ‘677)         2-99677          Apr. 11, 19902                                                     
          (Published unexamined Japanese patent application)                          
               Claims 1, 3, 4 and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                  
          § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under                    



               2We refer to and cite from an English translation of this document furnished by
          the PTO, previously made of record.  Appellants’ Supplemental Reply Brief dated April
          17, 1996, Paper No. 35, with an English translation of JP ‘677 attached, has been
          refused entry by the examiner (see the Letter dated                         
          May 28, 1996, Paper No. 36).                                                
                                          2                                           




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007