Appeal No. 2003-1593 3
Application No. 09/729,650
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 7 and 10 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over de Saint Roman in view of Lima-Marques.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over de
Saint Roman in view of Lima-Marques and further in view of Alkaitis.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over de
Saint Roman in view of Lima-Marques and further in view of appellants’ admission.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner, and agree with the appellants that the rejections of the claims under Section
103(a) are not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse each of the rejections.
The Rejection under Section 103(a)
It is the examiner’s position that, “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have used the ink-jet printing method
of Lima-Marques ‘600 as the particular ink-jet deposition method of de Saint Roman ‘575
at least with the expectation of similar results because Lima-Marques ‘600 teaches that its
ink jet printing method can successfully transmit inks containing metal carboxylates.” See
Answer page 4. We disagree with the examiner’s analysis.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007