Appeal No. 2002-0728
Application No. 09/404,570
Schwarz or Siddiqui, Watt and Takazawa, and further in view of
Nishizaki. The examiner relies on Nishizaki to show that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to obtain the claimed
haze value of no more than about 25 in the ink composition of
Malhotra. See the Answer, page 8. However, as argued by the
appellant (Brief, page 28), Nishizaki does not teach employing such
haze value to a hot melt composition containing at least one
polyamide and at least one terpene resin. There is nothing
referred to by the examiner, which shows that such haze value is
useful for the ink composition of the type disclosed by Malhotra
and/or Schwarz. Nor is there any teaching in the applied prior art
references that shows how such haze value can be obtained in the
ink composition of Malhotra and/or Schwarz.
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting
claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Malhotra in view of
either Schwarz or Siddiqui, Watt and Takazawa, and further in view
of Shacklette and Han. The content of Schwarz is discussed above.
The examiner recognizes that Schwarz does not describe or suggest
employing the claimed complex of a dianiline and a phosphorus-
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007