Appeal No. 2002-0699
Application No. 09/401,740
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use the
claimed percentage of polystyrene in the solid ink composition of
Takazawa, with a reasonable expectation of successfully using
such ink composition in thermal transfer or pressure-sensitive
transfer ribbons. See Peterson, supra. Accordingly, we
determine that Takazawa alone would have rendered the subject
matter defined by claim 9 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.3
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Takazawa, Yaegashi, Wickramanayake, Malhotra ‘117
and Breton ‘599. We concur with the appellant that there is no
motivation or suggestion found in the applied prior art
references to combine the disparate teachings therein for the
reasons articulated in the Brief, pages 28-37. We wish to
emphasize that the examiner has not supplied sufficient evidence
to demonstrate that substances useful for the ink compositions of
Yaegashi, Wickramanayake, Malhotra ‘117 and Breton ‘599 are also
useful for the solid ink composition of the type described in
Takazawa. In this regard, we note that the ink compositions of
3 We need not discuss the content of Ball since Takazawa
alone would have suggested the limitation recited in claim 9.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007