Appeal 2007-3386
Application 10/375,889
percent based on the moles of monomer used; and/or that (2) Fukushima
alone or in combination with Ohta do not suggest use of a crosslinkable resin
binder in an ink composition corresponding to the claim 1 requirements
therefore? We answer these questions in the negative and affirm the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections.
The Examiner has determined that Fukushima discloses a non-
pigmented heat-resistant ink including (1) a carrier liquid; (2) highly cross-
linked hollow micro-sphere polymer particles having a particle size
corresponding to the claimed particle size; and (3) a binder composition
comprising polymerized monomers including acrylic, styrene-acrylic,
polyvinyl lbutryl or urethane resins (Answer 4-5; Fukushima, ¶¶ 0001, 0010-
0012, 0014, 0015, 0018, 0019, and 0051).
We agree with the Examiner that Fukushima’s disclosed “use of
hollow micro-spheres with an extremely high degree of crosslinking” is
instructive/suggestive to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the
workable and/or optimum high degree of cross-linking and in so doing
would have rendered obvious a micro-sphere having a greater than 2 percent
degree of cross-linking, as here claimed (Answer 13-15; Fukushima, ¶
0012). After all, it is well-settled that it is within the ambit of one having
ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimum or workable ranges of such
a result effective variable through routine experimention. In re Aller,
220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Consequently,
Appellants’ arguments with regard to this claimed feature are not persuasive
of any reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejections.
Appellants’ arguments about the crosslinkable resin binder component
of representative claim 1 and the lack of combinability of Fukushima and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013