Appeal No. 2002-0699
Application No. 09/401,740
composition. We also take official notice that one of ordinary
skill in the art knows that the melting rate (time) of the solid
ink composition described in Takazawa is dependent on the heating
temperature employed. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that
the functional limitation recited in claim 4 does not distinguish
the claimed ink composition from the ink composition described in
Takazawa. Compare In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44
USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958,
959, 177 USPQ 705, 706 (CCPA 1973); In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576,
580, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937,
939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
It follows that Takazawa would have rendered the subject
matter defined by claims 1,2 4, 12 through 14, 16, 21 and 22
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art withing the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 8, however, is on different footing. There is no
teaching or suggestion found in Takazawa to employ the claimed
specific hardening component, e.g., poly("-methyl styrene) in
its solid ink composition. The fact that the claimed poly
("-methyl styrene) may be encompassed by the generic language
“polystyrene” in Takazawa does not by itself provide a sufficient
suggestion to one of ordinary skill in the art to select it from
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007