Appeal No. 2005-0581
Application No. 10/228,124
Appellant also contends that Miyabe "does not teach or
suggest the use of additives that would enhance ink drying upon
exposure of the ink to microwave radiation" (page 13 of principal
brief, second paragraph, last sentence). However, we find such a
teaching unnecessary for a finding of obviousness since a fair
interpretation of Miyabe is that any known ink drying agent would
be a suitable candidate for the coating layer. Only a reasonable
expectation of success is required for a finding of obviousness
under § 103, and appellant has not advanced a line of reasoning
which explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been dissuaded from selecting an ink drying agent that would
enhance drying upon exposure to microwave radiation.
We are also not persuaded by appellant's argument that
Isganitis teaches that proline is suitable for use as an ink
additive rather than as an additive to the coating upon which the
ink is printed (page 13 of principal brief, last paragraph).
Appellant's argument misses the point that it is Miyabe that
teaches the inclusion of an ink drying agent in the coating layer
which receives an ink image. Also, contrary to another argument
of appellant, Isganitis does not teach that proline is useful as
a drying agent only when the ink image is exposed to microwave
radiation. Since appellant and Isganitis share the same
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007