Appeal No. 2002-0728
Application No. 09/404,570
To remedy this deficiency, the examiner relies on the
disclosure of Tobias. The examiner finds (Answer, page 7), and the
appellant does not dispute (Brief, pages 26-28), that:
Tobias et al., which is d rawn to hot melt inks,
discloses the use of 0.1-5% conductivity agents in order
to control the conductivity of the ink from 500-1500
microsiemens/cm or approximately 8.7-9.2 log(picomho/cm)
which ensures that the ink has sufficient conductivity in
order to be successfully ink jet printed (col.3, line 19,
lines 29-30 and 35-37).
The appellant also acknowledges (Brief, page 26) that:
Tobias et al. discloses a hot melt ink composition
for use in continuous ink jet printing comprising an
electrolyte, an electrolyte solvating and dissociating
compound, and an image-forming agent, said ink being
solid at about 25/C, said ink liquefying at a
temperature between 75/C and 175/C, and said ink in the
liquid stage having a conductivity of greater than about
100 microsiemens/cm.
Thus, we determine that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to ensure that the hot melt ink composition of Schwarz has
sufficient conductivity, such as that claimed, so that it can be
“successfully ink jet printed” during the continuous ink jet
printing process.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Malhotra in view of either
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007