Appeal No. 95-3988
Application 07/986,316
disclosure of Watanabe as Example 2 (e.g., col. 15, lines 41-53), that the developer is maintained
above its melting point in order to remove excess “colorant” after the image is developed so that the
final image is formed.
Appellants contend that Watanabe teaches away from the invention of appealed claim 1
because (1) the reference requires highly porous materials as “the substrate upon which the image
ultimately resides” while the claimed process “enables the use of non-porous substrates” including, inter
alia, “transparency materials” (principal brief, page 10; reply brief, page 2); and (2) the reference
“does not teach or suggest removal of excess developer from the developed image subsequent to
development” (principal brief, page 11), that is, does not teach or suggest “the removal of residual
liquid (containing no colorant particles) in nonimage areas or excess liquid in image areas” (reply brief,
page 2).
We are not persuaded of error in the examiner’s position by appellants’ arguments for two
reasons. First, appellants’ arguments do not reflect the limitations of appealed claim 1. We construe
the clause of claim 1 considered here to require only that “excess developer” is “removed from the
developed image” at a “temperature above the melting point of the developer.” It is also clear from
claim 1 that the “developer” comprises “a colorant” and “a vehicle” as specified. Thus, there is no
requirement in claim 1 that only the “liquid” or “vehicle” of the developer is removed subsequent to
development. It is also clear that the substrate on which the latent image is formed or on which the
image “ultimately resides” is not specified in any limitation set forth in claim 1. Thus, any substrate
capable of participating in the process for forming an image comprising at least the steps set forth in
claim 1 is encompassed by the claimed processes. And, second, appellants have identified no
disclosure in Watanabe which in fact teaches away from the invention encompassed by claim 1 either
by discouraging a process for forming images as set forth in this claim or by teaching a process that
functions in a manner divergent from the claimed process. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 552-53, 31
USPQ2d 1130, 1131-32 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
We now turn to appealed claims 87 through 90, which we have separately considered. Each of
claims 87 through 89 entails a limitation involved with the transfer of the developed electrostatic latent
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007