Ex parte TUTT et al. - Page 4


                Appeal No. 1996-1887                                                                                                       
                Application 08/295,315                                                                                                     

                DeBoer ‘572 Example 3 by using the PTFE beads of Vanier ‘860 in place of the polystyrene spacer                            
                beads.  As appellants point out (principal brief, pages 5-6; reply brief, pages 1-2), Vanier ‘860                          
                discloses the use of lubricating particles, inter alia, PTFE beads, in the slipping layer and in the dye                   
                layer, which layers are on opposite sides of a support, in preparing a dye-donor element which does not                    
                have an overcoat and is used with a dye-receiving layer in thermal dye transfer processes which employ                     
                a thermal printing head (e.g., cols. 1-2 and 5-8).  We find that this reference teaches the use of the                     
                lubricating particles to overcome problems encountered with the storage of the dye-donor elements and                      
                the transfer of heat to the dye-donor element by the thermal printing head (id., e.g., cols. 1-2).  The                    
                examiner has provided no evidence or scientific explanation why one of ordinary skill in this art would                    
                have recognized that PTFE beads, based on their lubricating properties as taught in Vanier ‘860, can be                    
                used in place of polystyrene beads, and indeed, in a different polymer binder, in the overcoat of the                      
                dye-donor used in DeBoer ‘572 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 with a laser.  Indeed, the bare statement with respect to knowledge in the art on page 17                   
                of appellants’ specification does not provide such a suggestion and expectation of success because the                     
                materials with respect to which the statement is made are not disclosed in the applied prior art.  Because                 
                the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness, we have not considered                                 
                appellants’ contention that the evidence in the table on page 17 of the reference establishes unexpected                   
                results.                                                                                                                   
                        Thus, it is manifest that the only direction to appellants’ claimed invention as a whole on the                    
                record before us is supplied by appellants’ own specification.  Dow Chem., 837 F.2d at 473, 5                              
                USPQ2d at 1531-32.                                                                                                         










                                                                   - 4 -                                                                   



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007