Appeal No. 2003-1251
Application 09/226,128
at the column 15 portion of Hindman that contains the adhesive
material that is taught to be cured by heating or ultraviolet
energy and not the phase change ink itself, the reference does
not teach the feature of forming the latent image by means of a
liquid containing an ultraviolet curing adhesive material as
required by independent claims 10 and 13 on appeal.
Since we have not sustained the rejection of independent
claims 1, 4, 10 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated
by Hindman, we also must reverse the rejection of their
respective dependent claims.
Finally, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-8 as
being anticipated by Cloutier. We note again that the subject
matter of independent claims 1 and 4 on appeal requires a
thermosetting adhesive material rather than a thermoplastic
adhesive material. In sustaining the rejection, we disagree with
appellants' views in the brief and reply brief that Cloutier
essentially teaches a thermoplastic adhesive material.
The ink droplets 10 in Figure 2 include an adhesive material
with other additives. Two prior art materials are discussed at
pages 3 and 4 of this reference. Both the "Loctite 408" and
the "Bostik Super Bond" material both appear to be prior art
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007