Appeal No. 2006-0589
Application No. 09/860,388
"[a]lthough the image formed prior to radiation curing [in Arney]
is latent, it is still recognized and interpreted as an image"
(page 5 of Answer, first paragraph). However, we do not find
that a reasonable interpretation of the claimed "printed image"
includes a latent image that is not visible to the human eye.
Accordingly, we concur with appellants that Arney alone, or with
Speer, renders the presently claimed radiation-curable varnish
covering a printed image unpatentable under § 102 or § 103.
Hence, we will not sustain the examiner's rejections of claims
22-26, 31 and 32.
The examiner's rejections of claims 27-30 are another matter.
As explained above, claims 27-30 do not require a radiation-
curable varnish covering a printed image. Since this recitation
in claim 22 is the sole basis for appellants' traversal of the
examiner's rejections, it follows that appellants have not
rebutted the examiner's rejections under § 102 of claims 27, 29
and 30, and § 103 rejection of claim 28. We note that appellants'
Brief presents no argument with respect to independent claim 27,
but is focused only on claim 22. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner's rejections of claims 27-30.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
rejections of claims 27-30 are sustained and the examiner's
rejections of claims 22-26, 31 and 32 are reversed.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007