Appeal No. 1998-3217
Application No. 08/536,236
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Nealy in view of Kyser or Dexter.1
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we concur with the examiner that
the claimed subject matter would have been prima facie obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of §
103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejections.
There is no dispute that both Nealy and Barton disclose
inks for various printing processes comprising the presently
claimed particles comprising a colorant dispersed in an
emulsifiable polymer resin which are dispersed in a liquid
vehicle. It is appellants' position that neither Nealy nor
Barton discloses inks having a surface tension and viscosity
within the claimed ranges. However, inasmuch as Nealy and
Barton disclose that the inks can be used in a wide variety of
printing processes, we find that it would have been prima
facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to resort
1Since the rejection of the appealed claims over Nealy,
alone, is subsumed by the rejection of the appealed claims
over Nealy in view of Kyser or Dexter, we will focus upon the
rejection over Nealy in view of Kyser or Dexter.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007