Appeal No. 2005-1630 Page 3
Application No. 10/665,752
rejections, and to the brief (filed September 13, 2004) and reply brief (filed January 12,
2005) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 3, 5, 7 to 18, 20 to 36
and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Soga in view of Ma. The
examiner finds that Soga describes the elements of claim 1 except that Soga does not
describe a supply of pigmented liquid ink disposed in the containment vessel. The
examiner relies on Ma for teaching that the use of pigmented ink for ink jet printers
and that the use of pigmented ink provides images which have good print quality, and
water and smear resistance. The examiner concludes:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention was made to use the pigmented ink as
taught by Ma et al as an ink supply in reservoir of Soga et al for the
purposes of producing printing images having good print quality, water
and smear resistance, lightfastness, and storage stability. [answer at page
4].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007