Appeal No. 2004-1206
Application No. 09/826,473
However, the examiner sets forth convincing technical reasoning
as to why the inks disclosed by Gerstner must be transparent
(Answer, pages 10-11). Appellants have not disputed this
reasoning. See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d
1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999); and Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d
1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990).
Appellants also argue that Gerstner fails to teach or
disclose the requirement that no more than two inks may be cyan,
magenta or yellow process primary colors (Brief, page 6). This
argument is not well taken since Gerstner specifically
exemplifies only one process primary color (yellow), and thus the
claimed requirement is met (see col. 3, ll. 47-50).
For the foregoing reasons and those reasons stated in the
Answer, as well as the claim construction discussed above, we
determine that the examiner has established that Gerstner
describes every claim limitation of claim 16 on appeal within the
meaning of section 102. With respect to claim 18, we note that
Gerstner discloses that a suitable substrate is paperboard (col.
3, l. 22). With respect to claim 19, as noted above, Gerstner
discloses use of at least one opaque ink in combination with the
transparent inks (Brief, page 8; Answer, page 4; see Gerstner,
col. 3, l. 51-col. 4, l. 18). With regard to appellants’
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007