Appeal No. 2002-0728
Application No. 09/404,570
Watt in the ink composition of Malhotra. Specifically, the
examiner has not established that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have reasonably expected that the aldehyde copolymer useful
for the ink composition of Schwarz, Siddiqui and/or Watt is useful
for the purposes of Malhotra’s ink composition. See the Answer in
its entirety. In this regard, we note the applied prior art
references are directed to employing materially different
ingredients for different purposes.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1 through 5, 8, 9, 11 through 13 and 17 through 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, but reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting claim
10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Malhotra in view of
either Schwarz or Siddiqui, Watt and Takazawa and further in view
of Tobias. The content of Schwarz is discussed above. Schwarz
does not mention that its hot melt ink composition has the claimed
conductivity property.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007