Appeal 2006-2197
Application 10/068,824
layer does not exclude the presence of other components. Appellant has not
established that the other components disclosed in the Niu reference detract from
the adhesive properties obtained therein. As such, for the reasons set forth in the
Answer and discussed above, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection.
Claims 1, 9-14, 19-22 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Niu.6 We affirm the rejection of these claims for the reason set forth
in the Answer and above in the discussion of the 102 rejection. Appellant repeats
his arguments regarding the phrase “laminate adhesion.” This discussion is not
persuasive of patentability for the reasons set forth above. As discussed above Niu
discloses the suitability of employing an acetoacetylated polyvinyl alcohol in an
inkjet recording medium. This disclosure by Niu renders the subject matter of
claim 1 unpatentable. Appellant’s discussion of the control Example 4 of the
present record is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above when discussing
the Kawano reference. The evidence provided in the present record is not
sufficiently specific to establish that the present invention is patentably distinct
from the invention of the cited references. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection for the reasons previously established on the present record.
Claims 1 and 4 to 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Niu and Tomizawa. We affirm.
5 Appellant has not provided separate argument for the individual claims. Thus,
we select claim 1 as representative of the rejected claims and will limit our
discussion thereto.
6 Appellant has not presented separate arguments for the individual claims.
Therefore, we select claim 1 as representative of the rejected claims.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007