Appeal No. 2003-1251
Application 09/226,128
adhesive as required by these claims on appeal. In a manner
similar to our analysis with respect to Diggle, the additional
requirement of these claims that heat "cures" the adhesive
material such that the transfer material is fixed to an image
receiving member would also not be met as argued by appellants in
the brief and reply brief.
We turn now to the subject matter of independent claims 10
and 13 on appeal, both of which require a formation of a latent
image by means of a liquid containing an "ultraviolet curing
adhesive material." These claims also require that the curing
function is by means of ultraviolet rays.
The only portion of Hindman argued by the examiner and
apparent to us from our study of it that relates to such
ultraviolet curing is the alternative embodiment discussed at
column 15, lines 6-23. However, as correctly pointed by
appellants at pages 6 and 7 of the reply brief, this teaching
exclusively relates to the materials of a liquid layer in a
direct image process in which the ink and intermediate liquid
layer is placed directly upon the image receiving member, and
does not relate to the ink itself. In contrast, the initial
showings in Hindman's figures are with respect to a transfer
printing process. Since it is the liquid layer that is taught
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007