Appeal No. 95-3783
Application 08/034,917
coating layers on one surface or two coating layers on both
surfaces. Moreover, the original claims are not limited to any
number of coating layers.
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7
and 25 under § 102(b) over the admitted state of the prior art
disclosed in the present specification. Appellants’
specification acknowledges that the claimed phosphonium compounds
are old and within the prior art. Since the appealed claims
define a recording sheet comprising only a base sheet and a
phosphonium compound, we agree with the examiner that the prior
art phosphonium compounds, especially in powder form, as
acknowledged by appellants, would necessarily exist in the prior
art as coated on a base sheet. As explained by the examiner,
conventional preparation of such phosphonium compounds would
reasonably include the compounds coated on filter paper or
plastic sheets. To the extent the appealed claims broadly define
a recording sheet as comprising a base sheet and a phosphonium
compound, we agree with the examiner that the prior art bases
coated with the phosphonium compounds qualify as a recording
sheet. The appealed article claims do not recite any structure
which would distinguish the claimed articles from prior art
sheets supporting the phosphonium compounds. As for the
preambular language of intended use “for receiving printed
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007