Appeal No. 2002-0701
Application 09/201,269
Claim 24
The appellant asserts that Puschak’s ink is unsuitable for
use in a one-fluid or two-fluid lithographic printing method
(brief, page 25). This assertion is not convincing because
Puschak teaches that the ink is useful in printing processes
“such as” letter press, flexographic, and rotogravure (col. 10,
lines 48-50). The “such as” indicates that the ink is suitable
in printing processes generally, including lithographic printing,
and the appellant has provided no evidence or reasoning to the
contrary.
For the above reasons we conclude that the methods claimed
in the appellant’s claims 23 and 24 would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art over the combined teachings of
Puschak and Campbell.
Rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Tutt or Cleary, in view of Campbell
Tutt discloses a colorless overprint composition and teaches
that crosslinked or branched polymers can be included in the
composition to increase the abrasion resistance of the overcoat
layer (col. 2, lines 21-38; col. 3, lines 21-24 and 62-63). This
teaching would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in
the art, use of branched polymers which are known to be suitable
22
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007