Appeal No. 2003-0667 Page 4
Application No. 09/514,699
OPINION
Obviousness
Our initial focus will be on claim 1, the only independent claim. That claim is rejected
upon two bases: 1) as obvious over Wellings in combination with Lane as evidenced by the
Exxon Bulletins and 2) as obvious over Liu in combination with Wellings and Lane as evidenced
by the Exxon Bulletins. We affirm both rejections and in so doing adopt the findings of fact and
conclusions of law presented in the Answer. We add the following for emphasis and
completeness.
Wellings in combination with Lane as Evidenced by the Exxon Bulletins
The Examiner finds that Wellings discloses the process of claim 1 with the exception that
Wellings does not disclose including a liquid developer reconstitution compound in the liquid
developer concentrate (Answer at p. 7). The Examiner notes that Lane describes a liquid
developer concentrate containing a surfactant and also finds that the surfactant meets the
requirements of the claimed liquid developer reconstitution compound (Answer at p. 9). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the
liquid developer concentrate of Lane, which includes the reconstitution compound, in the process
of Wellings (Answer at p. 10).
Appellants argue that “Wellings does not teach the liquid developer reconstitution
compound recited for example, in claim one the Examiner has not established that Wellings does
not teach the use of a second liquid developer.” (Amended Brief at p. 8).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007