Appeal No. 2005-1787 6
Application No. 10/211,027
does not negate the full description provided in Cicci. The fact remains that Cicci clearly
teaches that a UV-light having a wavelength of 400 nm to 450 nm is preferred.
This is especially true in this situation since Cicci further teaches that “filters may be
used to block those [short] wavelengths which would tend to polymerize the outer surface
43 of the ink layer.” See column 3, line 68 to column 4, line 2. According to the appellants
(Specification, page 1, lines 24-26), “‘[s]urface cure’ refers to extensive reaction near or at
the coating surface and is most affected by wavelengths of about 240-270 nm (emphasis
ours).” Thus, we determine that Cicci’s preference for a UV-light having a wavelength of
400 nm to 450 nm to avoid surface curing indicates that its preferred UV-light is
substantially freed of wavelengths of “about 230 nm to about 265 nm”.
The appellants take the position that the curing system employed by Cicci does not
produce the claimed UV light substantially freed of wavelengths of “about 230 nm to about
265 nm”.2 See the Brief, page 4. In support of this position, the appellants refer to Exhibit
1. Id. Thus, it appears to be the appellants’ position that Cicci does not provide an
enabling disclosure as to curing an ink coating with a UV light having a wavelength
substantially freed wavelengths of “about 230 nm to about 265 nm”.
2 According to the appellants (Brief, page 4), “[t]he specification defines ‘substantially free’ as
meaning that the photon intensity in this wevelength region is not detectable using an EIT Uvicure Power
Puck (EIT Inc., Sterling, VA) integrating radiometer.” The appellants do not provide any evidence or
explanation relating to the degree of detection applicable to an EIT Uvicure Power Puck integrating
radiometer or a condition at which an IT Uvicure Power Puck integrating radiometer is used to perform the
detection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007