Appeal No. 1998-3217
Application No. 08/536,236
different ink jet inks" (sentence bridging pages 4 and 5 of
Reply Brief), appellants fail to explain just what, in fact,
are the differences between the inks of Nealy and Barton and
the inks which one of ordinary skill in the art would
typically employ in the ink jet processes of Kyser and Dexter.
Appellants have offered no convincing reasoning or objective
evidence which details why it would have been unobvious for
one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the inks of Nealy
and Barton, with appropriate modifications, in an ink jet
printing process.
One final point remains. U.S. Patent No. 6,025,412
claims an ink jet for ink jet printing having the presently
claimed surface tension and viscosity and comprises colored
particles dispersed in a liquid vehicle wherein the colored
particles comprise a dye chemically bonded to an emulsifiable
polymer resin. Accordingly, this application is remanded to
the examiner to consider a double patenting rejection of
allowed claims 17-19 and 21 over the claims of U.S. Patent No.
6,025,412. Further-more, in the event of further prosecution
of the subject matter at bar, the examiner should consider
such double patenting rejections over the appealed claims.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007