Appeal No. 2005-0335 Page 2
Application No. 09/569,645
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates generally to coating with liquid spraying and
more particularly to printing with ink that requires an activator and, even more
particularly, to transfer printing systems (specification, page 1). A copy of the claims
under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Hurst 3,604,434 Sep. 14, 1971
Burgess et al. (Burgess) 3,693,899 Sep. 26, 1972
Appellants’ admitted prior art (AAPA) on pages 1 and 2 of the present specification
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1-4, 10, 13, 14 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the AAPA in view of Hurst.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
AAPA in view of Hurst and Burgess.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed December 24, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the brief (filed October 1, 2003) and reply brief (filed February 23,
2004) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007