Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909
and stably produce inks using emulsion polymerization. We
determine that this is sufficient motivation to support a prima
facie case, and we therefore affirm the rejection of claims 19
and 20.
XIV. The rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Tsutsumi in view of Wong ‘043
Claim 22 recites wherein the ink vehicle is present in a
particular amount and the ionic surfactant latex polymer is
present in a particular amount, in which the ink further includes
a biocide in a particular amount, a humectant in a particular
amount, and a polymeric additive in a particular amount, and a
stabilizer additive. The examiner relies on Wong ‘043 for
utilizing a humectant.
We find that Tsutsumi, in column 11 beginning at line 1
through line 11, discusses the idea of adding other various
“publicly known additives”, if necessary. Tsutsumi states that
examples of such additives include wetting agents, dispersants,
defoaming agents, surface tension regulators, and mildew proofing
agents. We find this sufficient motivation to utilize the
biocide, which can be a mildew proofing agent, and a humectant of
Wong ‘043 (which can qualify as a wetting agent), and a
stabilizer.
We thereby affirm this rejection.
XV. The rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Tsutsumi in view of Wong ‘695
As mentioned, supra, Tsutsumi discusses the use of publicly
known additives which can be anionic or nonionic surfactants.
See column 11, lines 5-10. Wong ‘695 discloses such known
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007