Appeal No. 2005-1629
Application No. 10/001,256
obtain any desired properties.1 We have also noted that the claims on appeal are not
limited to any specific amount of “ultra-penetrating agent” (Decision, page 8, footnote 4).
Accordingly, we have determined that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in this art at the time of appellants’ invention to have used the penetrating agents
taught as preferred by Sano in place of common penetrants in conventional ink
compositions, with the amount of penetrating agent needed readily determined by the
artisan depending on the properties desired (Decision, pages 7-8).
With respect to issue II, appellants argue that, in light of Anton’s teaching that the
type of surfactant must be carefully selected to avoid negative effects, there could be no
motivation for one of skill in the art to select a type of surfactant from Sano (Request,
page 4). This argument is not persuasive for the same reasons as discussed above
1 We note that Sano tests the claimed penetrating agent in inks without alginates,
with results similar in most examples to inks with alginates (see the comparative
examples at col. 17, ll. 52-65, and Table 1). We also note that these non-alginate
containing inks were tested with the low amounts of the claimed penetrant used in the
corresponding examples of Sano.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007