Appeal 2006-3158
Application 09/945,764
JP ‘075 “teaches away” from using fibers having a higher tensile strength
since the image quality would deteriorate (Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 8).
Appellant argues that, contrary to the teaching of JP ‘075, they use a higher
tensile strength reinforcing layer than tissue paper but still avoid
deterioration of image quality (Br. 14). Appellant argues that the description
of the porous fiber film in JP ‘075 is “substantially similar” to the
description of a fibrous porous layer in the present specification (Reply Br.
5-7). Appellant points out that their Specification discloses that the porous
reinforcing layer has a high tensile strength and stiffness while the fibrous
porous layer has a lower tensile strength and stiffness (Reply Br. 7).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. First, we note that
Appellant has not pointed to any specific disclosure of JP ‘075 where the
porous fiber layer is characterized as “essentially a tissue paper.” To the
contrary, we determine that JP ‘075 teaches that a problem in the prior art
arises because layers in the stencil are made of “thin porous paper” with very
small fibers (see ¶ [0002] and [0004]). Second, we determine that JP ‘075
teaches that the fibers in the porous fiber layer may vary in thickness
depending on several variables but the diameter may be no more than 20
microns with a length of 0.1 to 2 mm (¶ [0066]). Although JP ‘075 does
teach away from fibers with a diameter of more than 20 microns (id.), the
claims on appeal are not limited to fibers in a layer with fiber diameters
outside of this range. See the Specification 13-14, where Appellant teaches
that the porous reinforcing layer may be “[a]ny ink permeable layer”
including “thin paper” where the diameter of the fiber in the layer is
“generally at least 14 µm” for reasons of proper tensile strength and proper
ink passage. Appellant’s argument that the porous fiber film taught by
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007