Appeal No. 2005-0581
Application No. 10/228,124
examiner, however, that the claimed subject matter would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the
meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Inasmuch as
we fully concur with the examiner's reasoned analysis and
application of the prior art, as well as her cogent disposition
of the arguments raised by appellant, we will adopt the
examiner's reasoning as our own in sustaining the rejection of
record. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
There is no dispute that Miyabe, like appellant, discloses a
recording sheet comprising a substantially uniform image
receiving coating that includes an ink drying agent. As
explained by the examiner, Miyabe does not specify any particular
ink drying agents for the image receiving coating. In the
absence of such a specific disclosure, it would have been obvious
for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ known ink drying
agents in Miyabe's coating layer, particularly those that are
used in printing processes.
Isganitis discloses a wide variety of drying agents in an
ink composition, including proline, an additive that admittedly
falls within the scope of the appealed claims. Consequently, we
find no error in the examiner's reasonable conclusion that it
would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007