Appeal No. 2001-2441
Application No. 09/067,923
The appellants argue that Tokunaga’s examples do not include
thermal transfer layer thicknesses which are within a range
overlapping that of the appellants (brief, pages 4-5).
Tokunaga’s disclosure, however, is not limited to the examples.
See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570
n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651, 176 USPQ 196,
198 (CCPA 1972). As discussed above, Tokunaga would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, thermal transfer
layer thicknesses and, therefore, coating weights, within the
appellants’ ranges. Regardless, it reasonably appears that
Tokunaga’s exemplified 6: and 8: transfer layer thicknesses
(col. 4, lines 24 and 50) are within the thickness range of the
appellants’ dried thermal transfer layer which is applied as a
solution/dispersion/emulsion having a preferred thickness of
12.7-50.8: and a typical solids content of 25-60 wt%
(specification, page 8, lines 7-13).
As indicated by the above discussion, a prima facie case of
obviousness of the thermal transfer ribbon recited in the
appellants’ claim 12 has been established and has not been
effectively rebutted by the appellants. Accordingly, we conclude
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007