Appeal No. 97-0222
Application 08/115,561
polyhydric alcohol or a combination thereof. The process entails
depositing an image from an ink jet on an adhesive, ink receptive
layer that is permanently adhered to a transparent, protective
layer which, in turn, is positioned on a temporary carrier layer.
The ink imaged layer is then applied to a substrate which bonds
to the adhesive layer. The temporary carrier layer is then
removed leaving a protected ink image on the substrate.
Appealed claims 1-29, 32-35 and 42-44 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of the
admitted prior art. Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of
Parker, and claims 36 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hunt in view of Yamane. In addition,
the appealed claims stand provisionally rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
over claims 1-32 of copending application, U.S. Serial No.
08/115,564 in view of Hunt.2
2The Examiner’s Answer misstates the double patenting
rejection at page 6 of the Answer as applicable to only claims
1-37. However, since the examiner’s Advisory Action of
January 18, 1996 states that all the appealed claims stand
rejected, and appellants have not contested the double patenting
rejection but have offered to file a terminal disclaimer, we
will, for purposes of this appeal, consider all the appealed
claims to stand rejected under obviousness-type double patenting.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007