Appeal No. 2002-0699
Application No. 09/401,740
Yaegashi, Wickramanayake, Malhotra ‘117 and Breton ‘599 Y are not
only made of mixtures materially different from those employed in
Takazawa, but also directed to uses or applications materially
different from those described in Takazawa. Accordingly, we
reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10 and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claim 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Takazawa, Shawcross and Bruder. We concur with the appellant
that the examiner has not demonstrated that tetrahydronaphthalene
and carboxamide useful for the liquid ink compositions of the
type described in Shawcross and Bruder are useful for the solid
ink composition of the type described in Takazawa. See the
Brief, pages 37-43. In other words, the examiner has not carried
his or her initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness regarding the claimed subject matter. Accordingly,
we reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting claim 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claim 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Takazawa, Shimomura, Yaegashi and Malhotra ‘390. We concur with
the appellant that there is no motivation or suggestion to
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007