Appeal No. 2000-2258
Application No. 08/888,759
preparation process, the only disclosed application of such hot-
melt ink by Zerillo is onto a hydrophilic, i.e., water-receptive,
image receiving layer. The use of a hydrophilic image receiving
layer as disclosed by Zerillo is in direct contrast to the
hydrophobic, i.e., water-resistive, image receiving layers used by
Kato ‘250 or Kato ‘705 and Kanda, as well as that specifically set
forth in appealed claim 5.
While the Examiner suggests (Answer, pages 5 and 6) 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.2 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
2 At page 6 of the Answer, the Examiner makes a passing reference to
faxed copies of portions of references supplied to Appellants in preparation
for an interview. As these documents are not part of any rejection before us,
they merit no consideration in the formulation of this decision on appeal.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007