Appeal No. 2005-1787 3
Application No. 10/211,027
2) Claims 2 through 12, 14 through 25, 27 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the disclosure of Cicci.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and prior art, including all of
the evidence and arguments advanced by both the examiner and the appellants in support
of their respective positions. This review has led us to conclude that the examiner’s
Sections 102(a) and 103 rejections are well founded. Accordingly, we affirm the
examiner’s rejections for essentially the reasons set forth in the Answer. We add the
following primarily for emphasis and completeness.
Under Section 102(a), anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
element of a claimed invention. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655,
1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With the above precedents in mind, we turn to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
14 and 29 under Section 102(a) as anticipated by the disclosure of Cicci. See the Answer,
pages 3-4 and the Brief, page 3. The examiner finds that Cicci teaches transfer-coating a
partially cured radiation-curable ink in a pattern on a printable substrate corresponding to
the first step recited in claims 1, 14 and 29 and exposing the resulting ink coated printable
substrate to UV-light having a wavelength in the range of 200 to 450, preferably in the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007