Appeal No. 2005-1787 7
Application No. 10/211,027
However, for the reasons well articulated by the examiner (Answer, pages 3 and 6),
we are not convinced that the appellants have demonstrated that Cicci lacks 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”. Compare In re Spence, 261 F.2d
244, 246, 120 USPQ 82, 83 (CCPA 1958). As correctly found by the examiner (Answer,
page 3), “Cicci teaches that if the radiation source produces too high a level of short
wavelength UV, filters may be used to block those wavelengths which would tend to
polymerize the outer surface 4b of the ink layer (See column 3, lines 66-69; column 4, lines
1-2).” Thus, we concur with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art interested in
carrying out the preferred method of Cicci would have employed its curing system,
together with filters, to produce a UV light in the preferred range of 400-450 nm.
Having considered all of the arguments and evidence advanced by the appellants,
we concur with the examiner that Cicci fully describes the subject matter defined by claims
1, 14 and 29 within the meaning of Section 102.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 2 through 12, 14 through 25, 27
and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the disclosure of Cicci. The
appellants do not question the examiner’s findings relating to the limitations recited in
claims 2 through 12, 14 through 25, 27 and 28, except for the phrase “consisting
essentially of” and the claimed UV-light wavelengths as indicated supra. Thus, for the
same factual findings and conclusions set forth above, we are not convinced that Cicci
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007