Appeal No. 2000-2149 6
Application No. 08/859,901
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner, and agree with the examiner that the rejection on the grounds of obviousness
is well founded with the exception of claim 32.
As an initial matter the appellants have stated that, “claims 1, 3, 8-10, 29 and 33
stand or fall together.” See Brief, page 10. Claims 20, 32, and 33 are independently
patentable from claim 1. We note the conflict in the above statement regarding claim 33.
However, inasmuch as appellants have presented separate arguments for each of claims 20,
32, and 33, we select claim 1, the sole independent claim and dependent claims 20, 32
and 33 as representative of the claimed subject matter and limit our consideration thereto.
See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1999).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Shimizu
Shimizu is directed to a water-based ink comprising water, a pigment, a water
soluble homopolymer and a copolymer having a hydrophobic and hydrophilic portion. See
column 1, lines 40-48. There is no dispute that these components correspond to elements
(a), (b) and (c) of the claimed subject matter. The issue before us is whether Shimizu
discloses component (d) the co-solvent mixture of the claimed subject matter.
We find that Shimizu discloses a preferred embodiment wherein a high boiling low
volatile solvent and a monohydric alcohol are incorporated into the ink. See column 5,
lines 5-8. We find that the amount of high boiling low volatile solvent is present in an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007