Appeal No. 1998-0189
Application 08/196,933
technical reasoning which would reasonably support her determination that the prior art
inherently discloses the suitability of the prior art’s light-sensitive materials for receiving
printed images and rapid drying images of an aqueous ink. “To establish inherency, the
extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily
present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by
persons of ordinary skill.’” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949,
1950-1951 (Fed. Cir. 1999), citing Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d
1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, we find that none of the references, Tachibana, Takeda and
Satomura, describe the claimed recording sheet required under 35 U.S.C. § 102, or
render obvious the claimed sheet. Rejections (1) through (5) are reversed.
Rejection (6)
The examiner states that the article described by Taylor at column 25, lines 32-
51, anticipates the claimed recording sheet. Paper No. 16, page 2, paragraph 5. The
article at column 25 is a test structure shown in Fig. 3. The article comprises a
transparent support having thereon in order: (1) a dye forming layer comprising a cyan
developer and gelatin, (2) a layer comprising a polymeric material, (3) an opaque
alkaline processing composition, and (4) a transparent sheet. The processing
composition contains an opacifying agent, titanium oxide, suspended in an aqueous
alkaline solution comprising 4-amino-pyrazolo(3,4)pyrimidine. See also column 11,
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007