Appeal No. 1999-1004
Application 08/764,439
wherein the reducing agent is 2,2’-methylenebis(4-
methyl-6-t-butylphenol) or 2,2’-methylenebis(4-ethyl-6-t-
butylphenol).
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Kohmura et al.(Kohmura) 3,937,864 Feb. 10, 1976
Shibahashi et al.(Shibahashi) 4,425,161 Jan. 10, 1984
Washizu et al.(Washizu) 4,962,009 Oct. 9, 1990
Saeki et al.(Saeki) 4,981,769 Jan. 1, 1991
Claims 1-3 and 5-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over either Saeki or Washizu
in view of Kohmura and Shibahashi.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejection is not well-
founded. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection.
It is not disputed that the primary references of
Saeki and Washizu are directed to image forming systems
utilizing optical exposure and that the secondary
references of Kohmura and Shibahashi are each directed to
recording materials that require heating for an initial
image formation. See pages 9-10 of appellants’ brief and
see page 6 of the examiner’s answer.
Appellants point out that the secondary references
of Kohmura and Shibahashi do not utilize their claimed
leuco dye capable of oxidative color formation. (brief,
page 11). The examiner responds and asserts that all of
the applied references use the same family of leuco dyes
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007