Appeal No. 2003-1251
Application 09/226,128
OPINION
As a result of our study of the disclosed and claimed
invention, the teachings of the applied prior art and the
positions of the appellants and the examiner, we sustain only the
rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-8 as being anticipated by Cloutier
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Generally, for the reasons set forth by the appellants in
the brief and reply brief, we reverse the rejection of claims 1,
3, 4 and 6-8 as being anticipated by Diggle. Both independent
claims 1 and 4 within this rejection recite the formation of a
latent image on the claimed material or member by means of a
liquid containing a "thermosetting adhesive material." These
claims also recite the application of heat to cure this adhesive
material so that the claimed transfer material is fixed to the
image receiving member through the use of the cured adhesive
material.
Our study of Diggle leads us to agree with appellants'
observations at pages 4 and 5 of the principal brief and those
set forth at pages 1-3 of the reply brief. There is no dispute
that the adhesive material in this reference is a thermoplastic
adhesive. For such materials, the application of heat does not
accomplish the claimed "curing" such that the transfer material
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007