Appeal 2007-3374
Application 10/448,758
REJECTIONS BASED ON SIGEL ‘501, MACQUEEN, AND SIGEL ‘625
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Sigel ‘501,
MacQueen, and Sigel ‘625 all teach and/or claim applying an ink pattern
containing a photoinitiator, thermal initiator, and/or a cure altering agent on
a substrate and then coating the substrate and the pattern with a UV-curable
coating composition to provide the claimed differential gloss, i.e., the top
coat overlying the primer (corresponding to the ink pattern) has gloss level
less than the gloss of the top coat not overlying the primer (ink pattern)
(Sigel ‘501. p. 2, para. 0012 and 0013, MacQueen, cols. 8-10, and Sigel
‘625, claims 1-36).
The dispositive question is, therefore, whether the Examiner has
identified a reason that would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art
to employ a flattening agent in an ink pattern completely covered by a
photo-curable coating composition within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
On this record, we answer this question in the negative.
As acknowledged by the Appellants (Br. 17), Carder teaches that a
flattening agent can be used in photo-curable compositions or photo-curable
inks to provide differential gloss. However, nowhere does Carder teach or
suggest employing a flattening agent in the inner ink layer completely
covered by a photo-curable coating composition. In fact, we find that Sigel
‘501, MacQueen and Sigel ‘625 all teach employing a flattening agent in the
top photo-curable layer to obtain differential gloss (Sigel ‘501, pp. 1-2, para.
0011, p. 4, para. 0037, and p. 5, para. 0061, MacQueen, col. 14, ll. 41-67,
and Sigel ‘625, claim 1). Moreover, as indicated supra, Sigel ‘501,
MacQueen and Sigel ‘625 already obtain the claimed differential gloss in the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013