Appeal No. 1996-1887
Application 08/295,315
“from an aqueous solution” that contained polystyrene beads as described in DeBoer ‘582 (DeBoer
‘572, col. 17, lines 49-51; col. 16, lines 16-19; and col. 4, lines 42-47). In DeBoer ‘582 Example 2,
the dye-donor element has an “overcoat of a water suspension of polystyrene beads . . . in a binder of
white glue (a water based emulsion polymer of vinyl acetate . . . and . . . [a] surfactant . . . ” (col. 7,
lines 16-20; compare col. 6, lines 3-6). DeBoer ‘582 teaches that the dye-donor element overcoat
should contain sufficient spacer beads to prevent contact between the dye-donor element and the dye-
receiving element “during the laser-induced thermal transfer;” that the spacer beads should not be in the
dye layer; and that the polymeric binder containing the spacer beads should aid in physical handling and
be dye-permeable (col. 2, lines 7-58).
Contrary to the examiner’s position (answer, e.g., pages 7-9), we find no disclosure in the
combined teachings of the DeBoer references which would have reasonably suggested to one of
ordinary skill in this art to modify the sole demonstration dye-donor element disclosed in DeBoer ‘572
Example 3 by replacing the overcoat thereof containing polystyrene spacer beads and coated from an
aqueous solution, with an overcoat containing spacer beads obtained with any of the other binders
disclosed for overcoats disclosed in DeBoer ‘582 (e.g., col. 2, lines 50-53) with the reasonable
expectation of obtaining a dye-ablative recording element that does not contain a separate receiving
element and is used in a process of forming an ablation image. In other words, we find that the
combined teachings of the DeBoer references would not have reasonably suggested to that person that
dye-donor elements of assemblies other than that of DeBoer ‘572 Example 3, can be successfully used
separately from the associated dye-receiving layer in a process of forming an ablation image. Even if
there was such suggestion in the combined teachings of the DeBoer references, there is no further
suggestion in these references to use the specific overcoat materials specified in appealed claim 7.
Indeed, as appellants point out (reply brief, page 3), the cellulose derivatives relied on by the examiner
(answer, page 4; supplemental answer, pages 3-4) are taught to be binders for the dye layer of the dye-
donor element.
Furthermore, we cannot agree with the examiner’s contention (answer, pages 4-5 and 8-9;
supplemental answer, pages 1-3) that one of ordinary skill in this art would have found the suggestion in
the combined teachings of the applied prior art to modify the overcoat layer of the dye-donor element of
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007