Appeal No. 2005-1629
Application No. 10/001,256
Regarding appellants’ first argument, we adopt our remarks from the Decision
and above concerning the use of the preferred penetrant taught by Sano as not limited
to alginate-containing inks, but the use of the claimed penetrant in conventional (or non-
alginate containing) inks would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art.
With regard to appellants’ argument concerning the specific properties tested in the
Watanabe Declaration, we note that Sano tests for many desired properties (col. 16, l.
36-col. 18, l. 29), some of which are the same or similar to the properties found in the
Watanabe Declaration (e.g., “stably jetted” at col. 18, l. 49, as well as “head clogging” at
col. 17, ll. 7-23, vs. ejection stability in the Declaration (see the specification, page 35);
“feathering” of the print at col. 16, ll. 36-52, and color bleeding at col. 16, ll. 53-67, which
we assume is similar to the “cohesion differential” shown in the Declaration).2 The
glossiness properties tested for in the Declaration would have been expected from the
use of the preferred surfactant (penetrant) taught by Sano, even though not described
per se, since a surfactant would have been expected to increase the surface active
properties of any ink composition. Regardless, the discovery of a property inherent to a
2 The “cohesion differential” was never defined in the specification (pages 32-33)
or the Watanabe Declaration.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007