Appeal No. 2002-0728
Application No. 09/404,570
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through
5, 8 through 13 and 17 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Malhotra in view of either Schwarz or Siddiqui,
Watt and Takazawa. We find that Schwarz discloses a hot melt ink
composition comprising, inter alia, a colorant, a binder and a
propellant. See column 4, lines 17-18 and the abstract. The
exemplified binder is a formaldehyde-toluene-sulfonamide which is
embraced by the claimed aldehyde copolymer ink vehicle. See, e.g.,
Examples III-VI, columns 16 and 17. The propellant includes, inter
alia, aldehydes having viscosities sufficient to enhance refill,
jettability, and substrate penetration characteristics of the ink
composition. See column 14, lines 25-29 and 45. These aldehydes
are embraced by the claimed nonpolymeric aldehyde viscosity
modifier. Thus, we determine that Schwarz alone would have led one
of ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed ingredients to
form a hot melt ink composition, with a reasonable expectation of
successfully improving its ink jet printing properties. See Merck
& Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d
1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re
Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962).
The appellant argues that Schwarz does not teach or suggest
the functional limitation relating to “the time required to change
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007