Ex parte VERMEERSCH et al. - Page 3


                 Appeal No. 1998-3012                                                                                                              
                 Application 08/751,764                                                                                                            

                         Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellants, we refer                          
                 to the examiner’s answer and to appellants’ brief and reply brief for a complete exposition thereof.                              
                                                                    Opinion                                                                        
                         We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in                                  
                 agreement with the examiner that the claimed imaging element encompassed by appealed claims 1 and 7                               
                 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Gardner and Vrancken to one of ordinary                                    
                 skill in this art at the time the claimed invention was made.                                                                     
                         As an initial matter, we find that, when considered in light of the written description in the                            
                 specification as interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art, see, e.g., In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,                        
                 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the plain language of appealed claim 1 requires                                   
                 that the imaging element comprise an image forming layer on the hydrophilic surface of a lithographic                             
                 base, wherein the image forming layer comprises a specified hydrophilic binder in which is dispersed                              
                 hydrophobic thermoplastic polymer particles and a cross-linking agent capable of cross-linking said                               
                 hydrophilic binder upon heating, and a compound capable of converting light to heat, said compound                                
                 being comprised in said image forming layer or a layer adjacent thereto.  The plain language of                                   
                 dependent claim 7 further requires that the specified hydrophilic binder comprises reactive groups and                            
                 the cross-linking agent is capable of reacting with the reactive groups under the influence of heat,                              
                 although it seems to us that the specified hydrophilic binders of claim 1 all have a reactive group,                              
                 particularly one or more of the three specified in appealed claim 8.2                                                             
                         In carefully considering the applied prior art, we find that, as pointed out by the examiner (Paper                       
                 No. 7, pages 2-3), Gardner would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in the art an imaging element                            
                 comprising a layer or coating of a hydrophobic heat softenable hydrophobic component (component A)                                
                 is dispersed in a hydrophilic binder (component B) which is on the hydrophilic surface of a lithographic                          
                 base, wherein the transfer of heat from a substance capable of transforming light into heat at least                              
                                                                                                                                                   
                 1  The examiner refers to the Office action of September 16, 1997 (Paper No. 7) for a statement of the                            
                 rejection.                                                                                                                        




                                                                      - 3 -                                                                        



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

Last modified: November 3, 2007