Appeal No. 96-3689
Application 08/325,914
For the same reasons, we also reverse the rejection of claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Clark. We find no teaching or suggestion in Clark, and the examiner has not provided any technical or
scientific reasoning, which would have led a person having ordinary skill in the art to the claimed recording
sheet. In addition, we agree with appellant that Clark is not analogous prior art with respect to the claimed
subject matter. We do not find Clark to be in the field of appellant’s endeavor, i.e., recording sheets for
receiving images of an aqueous ink, or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
appellant is concerned. In re Clay, 966, F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060-61 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-27 for obviousness is also reversed.
In summary, the decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
CAMERON WEIFFEBACH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOAN ELLIS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
THOMAS A. WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
CW/kis
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007