Appeal No. 1998-3281
Application 08/650,500
hydrophilic and hydrophobic moieties thereon. We do not find
such polymers described or suggested in Beach although Beach does
suggest the usefulness of dispersants having both hydrophilicity
and hydrophobicity for dispersing pigments in ink compositions.
Accordingly, we shall reverse the examiner's rejection because
Beach would not have rendered obvious the subject matter of claim
22 wherein the polymer used in the ink composition is the (b)
polymer.
REJECTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b)
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b)(1997),
we enter the following new ground of rejection with respect to
claims 3 through 22.3
Claims 3 through 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
the subject matter claimed thereon would have been unpatentable
from the disclosure in Ohta et al. (Ohta), Matrick or Ma et al.
(Ma), any considered with Krüger et al. (Krüger) or Xu et al.
(Xu). Ohta, Krdger and Xu are cited by appellant in his
specification and copies of same are of record. Matrick and Ma,
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007