Appeal No. 2002-0728
Application No. 09/404,570
the appellant only argues that Shacklette and Han do not remedy the
deficiencies of the applied prior art references, including
Schwarz, regarding the limitations of claim 1. Id. Thus, for the
reasons indicated supra, we affirm the examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 23 and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures
of Malhotra and Watt. For the reasons set forth above and the
reasons set forth at pages 34-36 of the Brief, we reverse this
rejection. As argued by the appellant (Id.), there is no
suggestion or motivation to combine the binders taught by Watt in
the ink composition of Malhotra as both Watt and Malhotra are
directed to employing materially different ink ingredients for
different purposes.
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(2001), we enter a new ground of
rejection against claim 24. Specifically, claim 24 is rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the disclosure of
Schwarz for the reasons indicated supra. Claim 24 is dependent on
claim 1 and recites that the aldehyde copolymer ink vehicle recited
in claim 1 is, inter alia, poly(p-toluenesulfonamide-co-
formaldehyde) which is suggested in Schwarz as indicated above.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007