Appeal No. 2000-1972
Application No. 08/928,002
does not require that the label material be used only as a
label, such that it does not perform any other function, such
as achieve print quality. Accordingly, the nonevaporative ink
solids of Anderson meet the label material of the claims in
that a sensor is sensitive to the concentration of solid
material, and is adapted to produce a signal which is
characteristic of the concentration of the material in the
ink. The fact that Anderson’s solid material may perform one
or more functions besides acting as a label is irrelevant to
the rejection.
Whereas there is no rejection of claims 1-4 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, appellant’s argument at page 5, lines 1-18, of
the brief that it would not have been obvious to modify
Anderson so as to render the claimed invention obvious is
dismissed.
The Rejections of Claims 5 and 10-13
Whereas appellant has indicated that claims 1-5 and
10-13 stand or fall together, and we will sustain the
rejection of claims 1-4, we will sustain the rejection of
claims 5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007