Appeal 2006-2197
Application 10/068,824
THE REJECTION UNDER § 112, ¶ 1
Claim 38 stands rejected under § 112, ¶ 1 as failing to comply with the
written description requirement. Specifically, the Examiner asserts that the
specification as originally filed does not provide written descriptive support for a
laminate adhesion promoting absorbing hydrophilic overcoat polymer layer
comprising an “anionic vinyl latex polymer.” (Answer 4). Appellant argues that
the Examples in the specification, particularly Example 4, provide written
description of an anionic latex (Br. 3). In support of this position, Appellant
provides the product information sheet for Mocryl® 132 to indicate that one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that Mocryl® 132 is anionic (Br. 4).
Appellant further argues that the anionic nature of Mocryl® is an inherent
characteristic of the chemical compound bearing the Mocryl trade name (Br. 4).
Upon careful review of the product information sheet for Mocryl® 132, we agree
with the Examiner that it is not readily apparent from this document that the latex
is anionic (Answer 12). We also note that the Examiner has requested that
Appellant provide further explanation or information regarding the chemical
structure. However, Appellant has failed to provide such information in responsive
briefing. Moreover, Mocryl® does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill
in the art that any and all anionic vinyl latex is useful for the claimed ink
composition.
Appellant, Brief page 4, also relies on the specification disclosures of
anionic polyurethane dispersions. The cited portions of the specification are not
persuasive because these disclosures do not refer to an anionic vinyl latex polymer
as required by the claim. Appellant has not directed to evidence that establishes
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007