Appeal No. 2002-0699
Application No. 09/401,740
combine the disparate teachings of the applied prior art
references for the reasons set forth at pages 43-49 of the Brief.
We only add that the examiner has not supplied sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that 2-oxazolidone, glutaric acid, and 4,
"-dimethyl-1,3-cyclohexanedione, which may be useful for the ink
compositions of Shimomura, Yaegashi and Malhotra ‘390, are useful
for the solid ink composition of the type described in Takazawa.
The ink compositions of Shimomura, Yaegashi and Malhotra ‘390 not
only are made of mixtures different from those employed in
Takazawa, but also are used for purposes materially different
from those described in Takazawa. Accordingly, we reverse the
examiner’s decision rejecting claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through
5, 7 through 9, 13 and 18 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Breton ‘607,
Takazawa, Ball and Fujioka. The examiner finds that Breton ‘670
teaches a hot melt composition useful for acoustic ink jet
printing, having, inter alia, a melting viscosity of less than
10cP, acoustic-loss value of 5-40 dB/mm and a haze value of 10-
30. See the Answer, page 12. According to the examiner, Breton
‘607 does not teach, inter alia, the claimed aromatic viscosity
modifier. Id.
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007