Appeal No. 2000-0808
Application No. 08/906,815
While the Examiner suggests (Answer, page 5) that the
advantages of using a solid hot-melt ink (e.g. eliminating ink
running) exist regardless of whether a hydrophilic or hydrophobic
image receiving layer is used, we find no evidence provided by the
Examiner to support such a conclusion. The Examiner must not only
make requisite findings, based on the evidence of record, but must
also explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed to
support the conclusion of obviousness. See In re Lee, 277 F.3d
1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Given this
lack of evidentiary support, we find ourselves in agreement with
Appellants’ contention (Brief, page 6) that no suggestion exists in
the applied prior art that the improved print qualities achieved by
Zerillo exist outside of Zerillo’s specific disclosed combination
of a hot-melt ink applied to a hydrophilic surface.
Further, in contrast to the lack of evidence supplied by the
Examiner to support the conclusion of obviousness, we find clear
evidence at Table I at page 41 in Appellants’ specification of the
improved results achieved with the presently claimed hot melt ink
and hydrophobic surface combination as opposed to the hot melt ink
and hydrophilic combination disclosed in the prior art. After
considering the totality of evidence presented on the record, it is
our opinion that any suggestion to modify the printing plate
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007