Appeal No. 97-1453
Application No. 08/196,672
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the admitted
prior art.
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejections.
Although the examiner apparently recognizes that none of
the applied references teaches or suggests an image receiving
coating comprising the claimed additive materials, it is the
examiner's position that the appealed claims are merely
reciting a newly discovered function or property of the
coating that does not distinguish the coating over the
coatings disclosed by the applied prior art. Therefore, the
examiner considers it irrelevant that the coating of Koike
which contains the claimed additive material is a subbing
layer situated between an adhesive layer and a photosensitive
emulsion, and that the coating layer of Ueno which contains
the claimed additive material is an intermediate layer between
a substrate and a direceptor layer. According to the
examiner, since Koike and Ueno disclose the claimed coating on
a substrate, "if appellant's claimed article functions as a
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007