Appeal No. 96-3689
Application 08/325,914
The examiner rejected claims 1-6, 9-15, 18-24 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
2 3
by Clark et al. (Clark) and claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Clark. The
claims on appeal are directed to a recording sheet. Claim 1 is representative of the claimed subject matter
and reads as follows:
A recording sheet which comprises a substrate and an image receiving coating
situated on at least one surface of the substrate, said coating comprising water and a
surfactant capable of exhibiting a liquid crystalline phase in water at a temperature of about
25E C or higher, said coating containing the water and surfactant in relative concentrations
such that upon addition of water to the coating, the surfactant undergoes a phase change,
thereby increasing the viscosity of the coating, wherein the recording sheet is suitable for
receiving printed images, said substrate being selected from the group consisting of paper
and transparent polymeric materials, said image receiving coating being suitable for
receiving high quality images of an aqueous ink, said images exhibiting sharp line edges.
2 U.S. Patent No. 4,666,621 issued May 19, 1987.
3 In the final Office action, the examiner rejected claims 1-6, 9-15, 18-24 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Clark and claims 7, 8, 16, 17, 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Clark. In response to the appeal brief, the examiner prepared an answer and two
supplemental answers. In the answer (paper no. 7), the examiner stated the rejections appealed as set forth in the final
Office action and introduced a new ground of rejection wherein claims 1-6, 9-15, 18-24 and 27 were rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Clark. The examiner repeated the grounds of rejection in the first supplemental answer (paper no. 8).
In response to the new ground of rejection, appellant submitted an amendment (amendment “B”, paper no. 9) wherein
the phrase “said images exhibiting sharp line edges” was added to the end of independent claims 1, 10 and 19. In
response to the amendment, the examiner mailed a second supplemental answer (paper no. 10) wherein the examiner
notified appellant that the amendment “B” was entered and restated the rejections as follows: “[c]laims 1 to 6, 9 to 15,
18 to 24 and 27 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Clark et al.” and that “[c]laims 1-27
stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clark et al.” (second suppl. answer: pp. 3-4).
It would appear that the examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 7, 8, 16, 17, 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Clark. Accordingly, we consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 8, 16, 17, 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Clark to have been withdrawn since the rejection does not appear in the second supplemental
examiner's answer. Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957).
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007