Appeal 2006-2197
Application 10/068,824
Claims 1 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 § 102(b) over Niu and Ueda.
The Examiner cites the Ueda reference for teaching the use of gelatin in inkjet
recording media (Answer 11). Appellant does not specifically address the
suitability of adding gelatin to the teachings of the Kawano reference. Rather,
Appellant repeats the arguments regarding the phrase “laminate adhesion.” (Br.
32). These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above in the
discussion of the Niu reference. The Examiner’s motivation for adding gelatin to
the composition of Niu is reasonable. Appellant has failed to provide arguments
which establish otherwise. The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Niu in
view of Appellant’s admission on pages 8, 9 of the specification. We affirm for
the reasons forth in the Answer and add the following.
Appellant repeats the arguments that Niu is silent as to disclosing a laminate
adhesion promoting overcoat containing acetoacetylated polyvinyl alcohol (Br. 6-
7). Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Appellant has not argued that the commercially available polyurethane dispersion
discussed by the Examiner would not have been suitable for use in the invention of
Niu. Further Appellant argues that Niu does not recognize improving laminated
adhesion by using the combination of acetoacetylated polyvinyl alcohol and
anionic polyurethane dispersion. These arguments are not persuasive. Appellant
has not directed us to evidence that the claimed polyvinyl alcohol and polyurethane
provide unexpected results. It is not disputed that Niu in column 9 discloses that
the combination of a polyurethane resin and acetoacetylated polyvinyl alcohol can
be used in the top layer of inkjet recording media. The Appellant has not
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007