Appeal No. 2001-2441
Application No. 09/067,923
Tokunaga does not address whether his thermal magnetic
transfer layer is receptive to thermal transfer ink. However,
for a prima facie case of obviousness to be established, Tokunaga
need not be modified for the purpose of solving the problem
addressed by the appellants. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427,
1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Beattie, 974
F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re
Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(en banc), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991); In re Lintner, 458
F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). As discussed
above, Tokunaga’s disclosure encompasses thermal magnetic
transfer ribbons having, on a flexible substrate, a thermal
transfer layer which is made of the appellants’ wax, resin and
pigment, in amounts including those used by the appellants, and
which has a thickness range and, therefore, a coating weight
range, which overlaps that of the appellants. Hence, Tokunaga
would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
a thermal transfer ribbon which is made for a different purpose
than that of the appellants but which falls within the scope of
the appellants’ claim 12.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007