Appeal No. 97-1452
Application 07/876,105
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and
reads as follows:
1. A sheet or web useful in ion deposition printing
employing a polymeric-based toner and comprising a sheet or web
substrate, a coating on at least one surface of said substrate
which enhances the adhesion of said toner adhered to said coated
surface, said coating comprising a polymeric latex wherein when
said toner disposed on said coated surface is subjected to
transfixation in an unheated nip, said toner is retained on said
coated surface in an amount which is greater than the amount of
toner retained on an uncoated surface of said substrate after
toner on said coated and uncoated surfaces has been subjected to
a tape test, and wherein said polymeric latex is present on said
substrate in an amount of between about 0.7 and about 4.6 lbs.
per 3000 ft of substrate surface.2
Claims 1 through 3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph, as being based on a non-enabling
disclosure.
Having considered the entire record on appeal which includes
the specification, the appellants’ Brief (Paper No. 23) and the
examiner’s Supplemental Answer (Paper No. 26), we find ourselves 2
in full agreement with the appellants’ position. Accordingly, we
reverse.
The examiner’s rejection reads in its entirety:
[c]laims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, because the specification does not enable any
2The original Answer (Paper No. 24) was remanded to the
examiner by this Board for correction. Accordingly, for purposes
of this appeal we have considered the examiner’s arguments as
presented in the Supplemental Answer (Paper No. 25).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007