Appeal No. 2003-1861
Application No. 09/551,537
contained in the organic dye layer, is in an amount of 2% to
about 15% by weight, based on the organic dye. On page 6 of the
brief, appellants argue that Hurditch discloses that the
recording layer is formed by dissolving the dye mixture together
with any additional nickel stabilizer in a coating solvent at a
concentration in the range of 2-10%. Appellants argue that this
amount therefore includes a nickel stabilizer.
We find, in column 10, at lines 15-17 of Hurditch, that
Hurditch indicates that the amount of nickel stabilizer can be
from about 1 to 25% by weight. If, for example, the amount of
about 1% by weight of nickel stabilizer is chosen, then the
amount of organic solvent would be as much as about 9%, which
falls within appellants’ claimed range of from 2 to 15%.
Therefore, we are not convinced by appellants’ arguments in this
regard.
Appellants further argue that their claim 1 does not
require performing a drying treatment step of the organic
solvent. Appellants argue that Hurditch must require a drying
treatment step because of the disclosure found at lines 9-10 of
column 11 of Hurditch. Appellants argue that this disclosure
indicates that because the drying is additional, then it must be
in addition to any drying that is already occurring or has
already occurred.
We disagree with this interpretation of Hurditch and we
refer to the examiner’s comments found on pages 5-6 of the
answer. Here, the examiner correctly states that there is
nothing in Hurditch that discloses additional drying or an
initial drying. We agree. An optional drying step to further
remove residual solvent does not suggest or mean that another
drying step must have occurred or is already occurring.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007