Appeal No. 2000-1972
Application No. 08/928,002
claim 1, it is argued that Anderson’s sensor is one which
detects the concentration of non-evaporative ink solids, while
the claimed sensor has the structure for sensing label
material. It is urged that the phrase “label material” as
used in the claim is not the same as the non-evaporative ink
solids of Anderson. Appellant states that his specification
at page 11, lines 23-29, teaches,
[t]he term “detectable label material”
refers herein to an ink ingredient that is
added to the ink . . . . The
concentration of the detectable label
material to the concentration of the
colorant is held as constant in the ink.
The detectable label material is, however,
not required to perform any other
functions in the printhead or on the
receiver media. In other words, the ink
can achieve desired print qualities
without the assistance of the detectable
label materials.
Appellant submits that the above disclosure requires that the
phrase “label material” as used in the claims identifies an
ingredient which is only used to identify a characteristic of
the ink, and is not used for printing optical density on a
receiver.
We are not persuaded by this argument and will
sustain the rejection of claims 1-4. The above disclosure
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007