Appeal No. 2004-1372
Application No. 09/577,551
enhance smudge resistance. See column 1, lines 8-16, column 2,
lines 56-63, column 3, lines 19-26 and column 5, lines 1-30.
Given the above teachings, we concur with the examiner that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ the
claimed composition to provide indicia or markings in the bandages
of the type described in Hassell, motivated by a reasonable
expectation of obtaining the advantages stated in Miyamoto and/or
Davey. This is especially true since Hassell clearly teaches
employing any printing inks useful for plastic substrates,
inclusive of those disclosed in Miyamoto and/or Davey.
Even if the appellants’ motivation for employing the claimed
ink composition on elastomeric bandages is slightly different from
those taught in Miyamoto and/or Davey, our conclusion would not be
altered. The motivation disclosed in the applied prior art need
not be identical to that of the appellants so long as there is an
incentive to employ the claimed composition to provide markings in
Hassell’s bandages. In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d
1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1304, 190
USPQ 425, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
The appellants argue that both Davey and Miyamoto are from
nonanalogous art and cannot be used in the examiner’s Section 103
rejection. See, e.g., the Brief, page 9. We do not agree.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007