Appeal No. 2002-0701
Application 09/201,269
26. An overprint composition comprising a branched vinyl
resin having a polydispersity of at least about 15, wherein said
overprint varnish is transparent.[3]
THE REFERENCES
Carlick et al. (Carlick) 4,469,826 Sep. 4, 1984
Cleary et al. (Cleary) 5,616,364 Apr. 1, 1997
Oshima et al. (Oshima) 5,780,548 Jul. 14, 1998
Tutt et al. (Tutt) 5,847,738 Dec. 8, 1998
(filed Jul. 11, 1997)
Puschak et al. (Puschak) 5,849,833 Dec. 15, 1998
(provisional application filed Jul. 21, 1995)
Margotte et al. (Margotte) 5,973,107 Oct. 26, 1999
(filed Jul. 24, 1997)
Campbell et al. (Campbell) 5,986,020 Nov. 16, 1999
(filed Aug. 5, 1997)
Houser et al. (Houser) 6,020,401 Feb. 1, 2000
(effective filing date Jun. 17, 1996)
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1-7, 9-18, 25,
27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Campbell;
claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Campbell in view of
Carlick; claims 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Houser or Puschak, in view of Margotte or Oshima;4 claims 23
3 In the event of further prosecution, the examiner and the
appellant should address on the record whether there is adequate
antecedent basis for “said overprint varnish” in claim 26.
4 In this rejection the examiner no longer relies upon
U.S. 3,865,772 to Hulyalkar (answer, page 10).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007