Appeal No. 2003-1251
Application 09/226,128
characterization beginning at page 10 of the principal brief
on appeal that Hindman's adhesive material appears to be
thermoplastic in nature. As such, it is incapable of being
cured to the extent recited in the claims on appeal as discussed
earlier as to Diggle.
The nature of the ink itself in Hindman is characterized as
a phase change ink. As set forth at the following locations in
this reference, this ink is heated and subsequently cooled twice:
the abstract, the prior art discussion at column 2, lines 1-27;
the Summary of the Invention at column 3, lines 24-46; and the
discussion at column 5, line 33 through column 6, line 4. The
details of this prior art ink used in Hindman are set forth at
column 6, line 64 through column 8, line 57. Significantly, the
figure 4 showing indicates that this ink is characterized also as
a hot melt ink. According to the just-noted functional use of
Hindman's prior art phase change ink as well as its characteri-
zation in Figure 4 of this reference as a hot melt ink, it is
therefore considered to be a thermoplastic-based material in
accordance with the definition from the Condensed Chemical
Dictionary attached to the reply brief. Thus, as to independent
claims 1 and 4 on appeal the artisan would not consider such an
adhesive material in the ink of Hindman as a thermosetting
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007