Ex parte BRETON et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1998-3217                                                        
          Application No. 08/536,236                                                  


          comprising a colorant dispersed in an emulsifiable polymer                  
          resin, wherein said ink has a surface tension of from about 20              
          to about 70 dynes/cm and a viscosity of from about 0.7 to                   
          about 15 cP at 25EC.                                                        
               The examiner relies upon the following references as                   
          evidence of obviousness:                                                    
          Dexter et al. (Dexter)           4,074,284          Feb. 14, 1978           
          Kyser et al. (Kyser)             4,183,031          Jan.  8, 1980           
          Nealy et al. (Nealy)             4,855,344          Aug.  8, 1989           
          Sacripante et al.                6,025,412          Feb. 15, 2000           
          (Sacripante)                                (filed Sep. 29, 1985)           
          Kenneth R. Barton, "Sulfopolyesters:  New Resins for Water-                 
          Based Inks, Overprint Lacquers, and Primers," American Ink                  
          Maker 70-72 (Oct. 1993)                                                     
               Appellants' claimed invention is directed to an ink for                
          an ink jet printing process.  The ink comprises colored                     
          particles dispersed in an emulsifiable polymer resin.  Also,                
          the ink has the recited surface tension and viscosity.                      
               Appellants submit the following two groups of claims at                
          page 4 of the principal brief:  (I) claims 1-13 and 16; and                 
          (II) claim 20.  Accordingly, claims 2-13 and 16 stand or fall               
          together with claim 1.                                                      
               Appealed claims 1-13, 15, 16 and 20 stand rejected under               
          35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nealy.  Claims 1-7,              
          10, 12 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                 
          unpatentable over Barton.  In addition, claims 1-13, 16 and 20              

                                         -2-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007