Ex Parte Cheng et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 30, 2002

09385909 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 30, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and
is not binding precedent of the Board

Paper No. 10

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte CHIEH-MIN CHENG
And MIN-HONG FU
___________

Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application No. 09/385,909
___________

ON BRIEF
__________

Before OWENS, WALTZ and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent
Judges.

PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1-37, 41, and 43. A copy of each of these claims is set forth in
the attached appendix.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
unpatentability are:
Lundberg et al. (Lundberg) 4,387,174 June 7, 1983
Beach et al. (Beach) 5,719,204 Feb. 17, 1998
Satake et al. (Satake) 5,814,685 Sep. 29, 1998
Wong et al. (Wong ‘695) 5,762,695 June 9, 1998
Wong et al. (Wong ‘043) 5,837,043 Nov. 17, 1998
Puschak et al. (Puschak) 5,849,833 Dec. 15, 1998
Lin 5,851,274 Dec. 22, 1998
Villiger et al. (Villiger) 5,852,073 Dec. 22, 1998
Collins et al. (Collins) 5,891,950 Apr. 6, 1999
Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909

2

Breton et al. (Breton) 5,977,209 Nov. 2, 1999
Patel et al. (Patel) 5,977,210 Nov. 2, 1999
Tsutsumi et al. (Tsutsumi) 5,998,501 Dec. 7, 1999

Claims 1-8, 12, 15, 18-21, 24, 27, 28, 31, 41, and 43 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Collins.
Claims 9 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Collins in view of either Puschak or
Villiger.
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Collins in view of Lundberg.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Collins in view of Beach.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Collins in view of Satake.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Collins in view of Breton.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Collins in view of Wong ‘695.
Claims 25 and 34-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Collins.
Claims 1-8, 12, 15, 17, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30-32, 34-37, 41,
and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Tsutsumi.
Claims 9 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Tsutsumi in view of either Puschak or
Villiger.
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Tsutsumi in view of Lundberg.
Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909

3

Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Tsutsumi in view of Beach.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable Tsutsumi in view of Collins or Patel.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tsutsumi in view of Wong ‘043.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tsutsumi in view of Wong ‘695.
Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
patentable over Tsutsumi in view of Lin.
On pages 6-7 of the brief, appellants state that the claims
do not stand or fall together, and state that each of the claims
in each of the rejections are to be specifically and separately
considered. Hence, we consider claims within each grouping of
claims to the extent that appellants provide arguments supporting
patentability for a particular claim. 37 CFR §1.192
(c)(7)(8)(2000).

OPINION
I. The rejection of claims 1-8, 12, 15, 18-21, 24, 27, 28, 31,
41 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Collins

On page 7 of the brief, appellants argue that Collins, at
column 5, beginning at line 43, sets forth that the water based
emulsion polymerization to prepare the SAAP, preferably occurs in
the presence of a nonionic surfactant and an anionic surfactant.
Appellants state that these surfactants are utilized to prepare
the SAAP. Appellants states that the PPAE is the reaction
product of a surfactant stabilized SAAP and a poly(alkylenimine),
and refer to column 2, beginning at line 48 of Collins.
Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909

4

Appellants state that this process is different from the process
set forth in their claim 1.
On page 19 of the answer, the examiner rebuts and states
that Latex Example 4 at columns 12-13 and Ink Example 9 at column
15, of Collins, indicate that polymerization occurs in the
presence of a mixture of nonionic surfactant and anionic
surfactants. On page 20 of the answer, the examiner states that
Latex Example 4 of Collins clearly meets the latex in the present
claims.
On page 20 of the answer, the examiner further states that
column 4 at lines 52-54 of Collins indicates that the ink
comprises a mixture of PPAE latex and acetoacetoxy-functional
polymer which is formed by reacting a mixture of olefinic
monomers in the presence of nonionic surfactants and anionic
surfactants (column 5, line 17-21 and 43-45, and column 6, lines
31-35 of Collins). The examiner states that thus it is clear
that Collins discloses the same latex as claimed by appellants.
Upon our review of Collins, we provide the following
comments.
Latex Example 4 described at columns 12 and 13 of Collins
sets forth a process wherein a latex is generated by the
polymerization of a mixture of olefinic monomers in the presence
of an anionic surfactant and a nonionic surfactant. Hence, we
agree with the examiner’s comments made at the bottom of page 19
of the answer.
Ink Example 9 described in column 15 of Collins indicates
that the latex from Example 4 is then mixed with water and a
pigment. This disclosure therefore satisfies the aspect of
appellants’ claim 1 in connection with mixing an ink vehicle and
colorant with the latex.
Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909

5

We are mindful of appellants’ comments regarding the
preparation of the SAAP and the PPAE. However, as stated by the
examiner on page 20 of the answer, Collins, at column 4 beginning
at line 52, states that another preferred ink composition
contains a pigment and a mixture of PPAE latex and an
acetoacetoxy-functional polymer latex (SAAP). Also, we refer to
column 6, beginning at line 31 of Collins, which discloses that
the ionic sulfonate monomer and other stabilizing monomers may be
incorporated into the SAAP. Hence, in fact, the acetoacetoxy-
functional polymer (SAAP) is polymerized in the presence of
olefinic monomers and also in the presence of an ionic sulfonate
monomer.
In view of the above, we find that Collins does anticipate
claims 1-8, 12, 15, 18-21, 24, 27, 28, 31, 41, and 43. We note
that appellants do not argue the other claims in connection with
this anticipation rejection, and therefore we need only consider
the patentability of separate claims to the extent that
appellants argue them. Hence, in this rejection, appellants only
argue claim 1 and we therefore only need to consider claim 1. We
do note that with respect to claim 8, the sodium 2-acrylamido-2-
methylpropane sulfonate disclosed in column 6 at lines 31-34 of
Collins anticipates the formula set forth therein.
For the reasons stated above, we affirm this rejection.

II. The rejection of claims 9 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Collins in view of either Puschak or
Villiger

We note that claim 9 depends on claim 8. Claim 9 recites
“wherein m is zero, or 1.” Hence, m can have the value of 1 in
claim 9. Collins meets the requirement of claim 9 when m is 1,
Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909

6

for the same reason discussed above with respect to claim 8, and
hence, because anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, we
affirm this rejection with respect to claim 9.
With respect to claim 16, claim 16 depends upon claim 1 and
recites “wherein said ionic sulfonate monomer is sodium vinyl
sulfonate, or potassium vinyl sulfonate.” The examiner relies
upon the secondary references of Puschak or Villiger to meet this
aspect of claim 16. However, the examiner has not explained the
motivation of why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
utilized the sodium vinyl sulfonate as set forth in Villiger
(which is used in Villiger as a anchoring agent in promoting the
anchoring of an encapsulating polymer to the surfaces of colorant
particles during polymerization for ensuring that all the
colorant particles are uniformly coated by the polymer). Nor has
the examiner explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have substituted the sodium vinyl sulfonate of Puschak (Puschak
utilizes the sodium vinyl sulfonate as an acid functional monomer
to obtain a desired range of acid number). The examiner has not
explained why either of these utilities would be useful in the
process of Collins. In this context, we therefore agree with
appellants’ comments made on pages 8-9 of the brief. We
therefore reverse the rejection of claim 16.

III. The rejection of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Collins in view of Lundberg

We note that the claims 10 and 11 do not require alkylene.
That is, both claims 10 and 11 depend upon claim 8 and in claim
8, R' can be alkylene or –CO-R2. Hence, when R' is –CO-R2, which
Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909

7

is satisfied by Collins, in effect, Collins satisfies claims 10
and 11.
We therefore affirm this rejection.

IV. The rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Collins in view of Beach

Claims 13 and 14 depend upon claim 8 and claim 13 recites
that X can be sodium, and claim 14 recites that X can be an
alkali metal. Therefore, Collins satisfies claims 13 and 14 when
X is ammonium or when X is an alkali metal. See column 6, lines
31-35 of Collins.
Hence, we affirm this rejection.

V. The rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Collins
in view of Satake

Claim 23 depends upon claim 1, and recites “wherein the
colorant is a dye.” Claim 1 uses the word “comprises”. Hence,
additional colorants, in addition to a dye, may exist in the
preparation of the ink according to claim 1. As pointed out by
the examiner on page 9 of the answer, Satake discloses the use of
a dye in conjunction with a pigment in order to adjust the hue of
the ink. We find such disclosure provides sufficient motivation
to utilize a dye (in conjunction with a pigment, which claim 1
does not exclude) in an ink composition to adjust the hue of the
ink.

Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909

8

VI. The rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Collins
in view of Breton

Claim 26 concerns the particle size distribution of the
colorant. The examiner relies upon Breton for teaching a
particle size distribution wherein at least about 90% of the
pigment particles have a diameter of about 0-1 µm with the
remaining pigment particles being a diameter of about 1.0µm. See
column 4, lines 13-16. As stated by the examiner on pages 9-10
of the answer, the motivation for using such a size pigment is to
prevent the ink from clogging the printer nozzles. We find such
motivation sufficient, and hence, affirm this rejection.

VII. The rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Collins
in view of Wong ‘695

Claim 29 depends upon claim 28, and claim 28 recites the
addition of ink additives. Claim 29 recites specific kinds of
additives and amounts. As pointed out by the examiner on page 10
of the answer, Wong ‘695 discloses the use of surfactants such as
polyethylene glycol monolaurate, etc., and refers to column 4,
lines 42-48. We note also that Collins, at column 3 beginning at
line 44, indicates that the ink compositions of the invention may
also contain “common ink additives” such as surfactants.
Therefore, the utilization of the specific kind of surfactants
disclosed in Wong as the surfactants disclosed in Collins would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of
the fact that Collins teaches that common ink additives include
surfactants and in view of the fact that Wong ‘695 teaches the
specific kind of surfactants are known.
Hence, we affirm this rejection.

Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909

9

VIII. The rejection of claims 25 and 34-37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Collins

On page 11 of the answer, the examiner states that Collins
fails to exemplify the specific polymers in the claims of this
rejection. The examiner states that, nevertheless, in light of
the overlap between the monomers used to obtain the polymer, and
the corresponding monomers disclosed by Collins, it would have
been within the bounds of routine experimentation, to use a
specific polymer to arrive at the particularly claimed polymers.
On page 11 of the brief, appellants respond and state that
Collins does not render the claims of the present application
obvious, but does not set forth in any detail reasons in support
thereof.
We find that, for example, claim 25 requires the formation,
subsequent to polymerization, of a particular kind of polymer
recited therein. We find that Collins provides for the formation
of a polymer made from a monomer, such as a butyl acrylate, and a
ionic sulfonate monomer, such as sodium 2-acrylamido-2-methyl-
propane sulfonate, and styrene, and therefore this would result
in a polymer of, for example, 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane
sulfonate/styrene/butyl acrylate recited in claim 25. See column
6, line 11, line 14, and line 32 of Collins. Hence, we find that
Collins satisfies claim 25 in this regard. Collins also
satisfies claim 34 in connection with the claimed polymer, poly
(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonate-styrene-butyl acrylate-
acrylic acid). Likewise, the same for claims 35 and 36.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm this rejection.

Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909

10

IX. The rejection of claims 1-8, 12, 15, 17, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30-
32, 34-37, 41 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tsutsumi

On pages 11-12 of the answer, the examiner states that
Tsutsumi discloses a process for preparing an ink comprising
mixing an ink vehicle, such as water, a dye, and a latex that is
prepared by the polymerization of olefinic monomers in the
presence of nonionic surfactant and an anionic surfactant.
The examiner states that the ink composition of Tsutsumi further
contains ink additives such as biocide and stabilizers. The
examiner states that the ink is printed using an ink jet printer.
(answer, pages 11-12).
Appellants argue that Tsutsumi illustrates a process for
generating an aqueous ink, wherein the process involves the step
of dissolving a salt-forming group-having polymer and an
hydrophobic dye in a water soluble organic solvent to obtain a
solution, adding water and a neutralizing agent to the solution
to ionize the salt forming group-having polymer, emulsifying the
resulting mixture, and removing the solvent to obtain a
dispersion of the polymer particles in which the dye has been
encompassed. (brief, page 12). Appellants state that this is
different from their claimed process wherein a latex is generated
by the polymerization of a mixture of olefinic monomers wherein
at least one of the monomers is an ionic sulfonate monomer and
wherein the polymerization is accomplished in the presence of an
anionic surfactant and a nonionic surfactant. (brief, page 12).
We find that Tsutsumi is directed to a process for producing
an aqueous ink for ink jet printing. At column 6, beginning at
line 48, Tsutsumi discloses that the polymer is produced by
copolymerizing one or more monomers selected from the group
Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909

11

consisting of the silicon macromer represented by formula (1) and
(meth)acrylamide monomers of a salt-forming group-having
polymerizable monomer. The vinyl polymer can be produced by
copolymerizing the above-mentioned monomers by known
polymerization methods. See column 6, lines 57-59.
The process of Tsutsumi “sometimes involves an additional
step of adding a surfactant together with water and a
neutralizing agent”. See column 2, lines 44-46.
As the salt-forming group-having polymer, to be used in the
invention of Tsutsumi, it is preferable to use a vinyl polymer
obtained by copolymerizing at least one monomer selected from the
group consisting of a silicone macromer represented by formula
(1), an acrylamide monomer and a methacrylamide monomer,
excluding those having salt-forming groups, with a salt-forming
group-having polymerizable unsaturated monomer and a monomer
copolymerizable with the above-mentioned monomers in the presence
of a radical polymerization initiator. See column 2, lines 60-68
and column 3, lines 1-5.
Examples of the salt-forming group-having polymerizable
unsaturated monomers include cationic monomers and unsaturated
ammonium salt containing monomers. Particular examples thereof
include monovinylpyridines. See column 4, lines 50-55. Examples
of anionic monomers include unsaturated carboxylic acid monomers,
unsaturated sulfonic acid monomers, and unsaturated phosphoric
acid monomers. See column 5, lines 8-12. Particular examples
include unsaturated carboxylic acid monomers such as acrylic
acid, methyl acrylate acid, crotonic acid, etc. See column 5,
lines 12-27. Particular examples of unsaturated sulfonic acid
Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909

12

monomers include 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid.1
See column 5, lines 18-21.
Examples of monomers copolymerizable with the above-
mentioned monomers to be used in the invention of Tsutsumi
include acrylates, such as methyl acrylate, ethyl acrylate,
methyl ethyl acrylate, etc. See column 5, lines 30-56. The
polymerization usually is effected at 30 to 100°C. See column 7,
lines 39-40.
A dye is also utilized, and it is encompassed within the
salt-forming group-having polymer particles in the following
manner. First, the salt-forming group-having polymer and the
hydrophobic dye are dissolved in the water insoluble organic
solvent. Next, a neutralizing agent and water are added to the
above-mentioned solution of the salt-forming group-having polymer
and the hydrophobic dye in the water insoluble organic solvent to
thereby ionize the salt-forming group in the polymer. In this
step, surfactants may be further added if necessary. As the
bases, use can be made of ammonia, sodium hydroxide, or potassium
hydroxide.2 See column 9, lines 25-32.
The surfactant to be added can be anionic surfactants and
cationic surfactants. See column 9, lines 39-64.
The particle size of the resultant polymer particles having
the hydrophobic dye encompassed therein preferably ranges from
0.01 to 0.5
m still preferably from 0.02 to 0.3
m. See column
10, lines 25-32.
Tsutsumi discloses that it is possible in the process of
producing the aqueous ink, to further add “various publicly known

1 The salt of this compound meets the compound in appellants’ claim 8 and 9,
discussed, infra.
2 These bases form the salt-forming group-having polymer, resulting in the
compound recited in appellants’ claim 8.
Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909

13

additives”, examples which are set forth at column 11, at lines
5-12, which include cationic, anionic or nonionic surfactants,
and mildew proofing agents.
In view of the aforementioned disclosure of Tsutsumi, we
find that Tsutsumi generates a latex by the polymerization of a
mixture of olefinic monomers, wherein at least one of olefinic
monomers is an anionic sulfonate monomer satisfying the formula
set forth of appellants’ claim 8 (and therefore also claims 9,
10, 11, 13, and 14, as explained, supra, in sections II, III, and
IV, of this decision, further discussed below).
In view of the above, we affirm this rejection.

X. The rejection of claims 9 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Tsutsumi in view of either Puschak or Villiger

Our analysis for this rejection is based upon the same
interpretation of claim 9 discussed in section II of this
decision. Based upon this interpretation, we find that Tsutsumi
makes obvious the subject matter of claim 9. Hence, we affirm
the rejection of claim 9.
With respect to claim 16, our comments are also the same in
connection with the other rejection of claim 16 involving the
reference of Collins, discussed in section II of this decision.
In view of these comments, we reverse the rejection of claim 16.

XI. The rejection of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Tsutsumi in view of Lundberg

Our analysis for this rejection is based upon the same
interpretation of claims 10 and 11 made in section III of this
decision, and we therefore affirm this rejection in view of
Tsutsumi alone.
Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909

14

XII. The rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Tsutsumi in view of Beach

Our analysis for this rejection is based upon the same
interpretation of claims 13 and 14 made in section IV of this
decision, and based upon this interpretation, we affirm this
rejection in view of Tsutsumi alone.

XIII. The rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Tsutsumi in view of Collins or Patel

Claim 19 recites wherein the anionic surfactant is sodium
dodecyl sulfate, etc., and the nonionic surfactant is polvinyl
alcohol, polyacrylic acid, etc., and wherein the anionic
surfactant and the nonionic surfactant are in certain amounts.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the anionic surfactant is sodium
dodecyl sulfate,” etc., and recites the same kinds of anionic
surfactants as recited in claim 19.
In column 9 beginning at line 39, Tsutsumi indicates that
surfactants can be added and these can be anionic surfactants and
cationic surfactants. The examiner relies upon Collins or Patel
for teaching the particularly claimed anionic surfactant and
nonionic surfactant. On page 15 of the answer, the examiner
states that Patel discloses the use of anionic surfactants as
stabilizers and that Collins discloses the use of nonionic
surfactants as emulsifiers used in polymerizing a latex. The
examiner states that it would have been obvious to utilize the
specifically disclosed anionic surfactants and nonionic
surfactants in Patel or Collins in the process of Tsutsumi to
arrive at appellants’ claimed invention in order to effectively
Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909

15

and stably produce inks using emulsion polymerization. We
determine that this is sufficient motivation to support a prima
facie case, and we therefore affirm the rejection of claims 19
and 20.

XIV. The rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Tsutsumi in view of Wong ‘043

Claim 22 recites wherein the ink vehicle is present in a
particular amount and the ionic surfactant latex polymer is
present in a particular amount, in which the ink further includes
a biocide in a particular amount, a humectant in a particular
amount, and a polymeric additive in a particular amount, and a
stabilizer additive. The examiner relies on Wong ‘043 for
utilizing a humectant.
We find that Tsutsumi, in column 11 beginning at line 1
through line 11, discusses the idea of adding other various
“publicly known additives”, if necessary. Tsutsumi states that
examples of such additives include wetting agents, dispersants,
defoaming agents, surface tension regulators, and mildew proofing
agents. We find this sufficient motivation to utilize the
biocide, which can be a mildew proofing agent, and a humectant of
Wong ‘043 (which can qualify as a wetting agent), and a
stabilizer.
We thereby affirm this rejection.

XV. The rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Tsutsumi in view of Wong ‘695

As mentioned, supra, Tsutsumi discusses the use of publicly
known additives which can be anionic or nonionic surfactants.
See column 11, lines 5-10. Wong ‘695 discloses such known
Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909

16

surfactants. Therefore, it would have been obvious to utilize
the surfactants recited in Wong in the invention of Tsutsumi to
arrive at appellants’ claimed invention.
Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 29.

XVI. The rejection of claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Tsutsumi in view of Lin

The examiner relies on Lin, which discloses ink jet inks,
for teaching the use of a printer having 600 spi and nozzle size
of 10 to 49
m, in order to produce an ink image with high
resolution, and refers to column 2 at lines 14-17 of Lin.
The examiner states that it would have been obvious to use a
printer with Lin’s specific spi and nozzle size when printing the
ink of Tsutsumi in order to produce a high resolution image. We
find that sufficient motivation exists in this regard. We
therefore affirm the rejection of claim 33.

XVII. Conclusion
All the art rejections are affirmed except for the
rejections of claim 16 (claim 16 was rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Collins in view of either Puschak or
Villiger, and claim 16 was also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Tsutsumi in view of Puschak or Villiger).
Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909

17

No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Terry J. Owens )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Thomas A. Waltz ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Beverly A. Pawlikowski )
Administrative Patent Judge )

BAP/cam

Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909

18

John E. Beck
Xerox Corporation
Xerox Square 20A
Rochester, NY 14644

Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909

19

APPENDIX

1. A process for the preparation of an ink which comprises
mixing an ink vehicle, a colorant and a latex generated by the
polymerization of a mixture of olefinic monomers, wherein at
least one of said olefinic monomers is an ionic sulfonate monomer
and which polymerization is accomplished in the presence of an
anionic surfactant, and a nonionic surfactant.

2. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein said latex
is generated from a mixture of from about 2 to about 10 monomers.

3. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein said latex
is generated from a mixture of from about 2 to about 4 monomers.

4. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein said
olefinic monomer is a styrene acrylate, a styrene methacrylate, a
methacrylate, or an acrylate.

5. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein said
olefinic monomers are comprised of said ionic sulfonate monomer,
an alkyl acrylate, and an alkyl methacrylate.

6. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein said
olefinic monomers are comprised of said (1) ionic sulfonate
monomer, and (2) an alkyl acrylate, an alkyl methacrylate, a
benzyl methacrylate, an acrylonitrile, a styrene functional
monomer, or an acid olefinic monomer.

7. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein subsequent
to polymerization there results a terpolymer, or a copolymer.

8. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein the ionic
sulfonate monomer is of the formula

CH2 = CR(R')mSO3X

wherein R is hydrogen or alkyl, R' is alkylene, or –CO-R2 wherein
R2 is amino substituted with alkyl or hydrogen, or R2 is (CH2)n-0,
wherein n represents a number of from about 0 to about 5; X is
hydrogen, or a monovalent cation and m represents the number of
segments of R', and wherein the ionic sulfonate monomer is
selected in an amount of from about 0.5 to about 15 weight
Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909

20

percent based on the amount of monomers selected to generate the
latex polymer.

9. A process in accordance with claim 8 wherein m is zero,
or 1.

10. A process in accordance with claim 8 wherein alkylene
contains from 2 to about 18 carbon atoms.

11. A process in accordance with claim 8 where alkylene is
ethylene, propylene, or butylene.

12. A process in accordance with claim 8 wherein amino
substituted with alkyl is acrylamide, methacrylamido, or
acrotonylamido.

13. A process in accordance with claim 8 wherein said
monovalent cation X is ammonium, sodium, or potassium.

14. A process in accordance with claim 8 wherein said
monovalent cation X is an alkali metal.

15. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein said ionic
sulfonate monomer is ammonium 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane
sulfonate, sodium 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonate, or 2-
acrylamido-2-methylbutane sulfonic acid.

16. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein said ionic
sulfonate monomer is sodium vinyl sulfonate, or potassium vinyl
sulfonate.

17. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein said ionic
sulfonate monomer is comprised of the salts thereof of 2-
acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid ammonium salt, 2-
acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid sodium salt, or 2-
acrylamido-2-methylbutanesulfonic acid potassium salt.

18. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein a mixture
of two monomers is selected.

19. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein the
anionic surfactant is sodium dodecyl sulfate, sodium
dodecylbenzene sulfonate, sodium dodecyl naphthalene sulfate,
sodium dodecyl diphenyloxide disulfonate, or sodium N-decyl
diphenyloxide disulfonate, and the nonionic surfactant is
Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909

21

polyvinyl alcohol, polyacrylic acid, methyl cellulose,
polyoxyethylene octylphenyl ether, or polyoxyethylene nonylphenyl
ether; wherein the anionic surfactant is selected in an amount of
from about 0.1 to about 10 weight percent based on the total
weight percent amount of monomers, anionic surfactant, and
nonionic surfactant; wherein the nonionic surfactant is selected
in an amount of from about 0.1 to about 6 weight percent based on
the total weight percent amount of monomers, anionic surfactant,
and nonionic surfactant.

20. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein the
anionic surfactant is sodium dodecyl sulfate, sodium
dodecylbenzene sulfonate, sodium dodecyl naphthalene sulfate,
sodium dodecyl diphenyloxide disulfonate, or sodium N-decyl
diphenyloxide disulfonate.

21. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein the
nonionic surfactant is selected in an amount of from about 0.1 to
about 6 weight percent based on the total weight percent amount
of monomer, anionic surfactant, and nonionic surfactant.

22. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein the ink
vehicle is present in an amount of from about 50 to about 99
percent by weight, the colorant is present in an amount of from
about 1 to about 20 percent by weight, and the ionic sulfonate
latex polymer generated after polymerization is present in an
amount of from about 0.05 to about 20 percent by weight, and
which ink further includes a biocide present in an amount of from
about 0.1 to about 10 percent by weight, a humectant present in
an amount of from about 0.1 to about 50 percent by weight, a
polymeric additive present in an amount of from about 0.1 to
about 10 percent by weight, and a stabilizer additive present in
an amount of from about 0.1 to about 5 percent by weight, based
on the total amount of components in the ink and which total is
about 100 percent.

23. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein the
colorant is a dye.

24. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein the
colorant is a pigment.

Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909

22

25. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein subsequent
to polymerization there is formed a polymer of 2-acrylamido-2-
methylpropane sulfonate/styrene/butyl acrylate/acrylic acid,
2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonate/styrene/butyl acrylate,
or vinyl sulfonate/styrene/butyl acrylate/acrylic acid.

26. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein said
colorant possesses a particle size distribution wherein at least
about 90 percent of said colorant particles are of a diameter of
about 0.1 µm with the remaining colorant particles being of a
diameter of about 1.0 µm.

27. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein the latex
contains water.

28. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein there is
added said ink, ink additives.

29. A process in accordance with claim 28 wherein said
additives are surfactants of poly(ethylene glycol) monolaurate,
poly(ethylene glycol) monoricinoleate, poly(ethylene glycol)
lanolin alcohol ether, poly(ethylene glycol) monooleate,
poly(ethylene glycol) castor oil, poly(ethylene glycol)
tetramethyl decynediol, or poly(ethylene glycol) lanolin, and
which surfactants are optionally present in an amount of from
about 0.01 to about 7 weight percent or parts based on the total
amount of ink components.

30. A process in accordance with claim 28 wherein said
additives are comprised of a biocide, a humectant, or mixtures
thereof.

31. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein the
vehicle is water, a glycol, or a mixture of glycols.

32. A high resolution printing process comprising applying
in imagewise fashion to a substrate an ink composition obtained
by the process of claim 1.

33. A process in accordance with claim 32 wherein the
substrate is paper, and there is selected a printer with at least
one nozzle of a channel width or diameter ranging from about 10
Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909

23

to about 40 microns and intercolor bleed is minimized or
eliminated, and wherein said printing process is optionally
accomplished with a 600 spi ink jet printer with a radiant heat
assisting drying process.

34. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein subsequent
to polymerization there is formed a polymer selected from the
group consisting of poly(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonate-
styrene-butyl acrylate-acrylic acid), poly(2-acrylamido-2-
methylpropanesulfonate-styrene-acrylonitrile-acrylic acid),
poly(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonate-styrene-butadiene-
acrylic acid), poly(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonate-
styrene-vinyl acetate-acrylic acid), poly(2-acrylamido-2-
methylpropanesulfonate-styrene-butyl acrylate-methacrylic acid),
poly(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonate-benzyl methacrylate-
acrylic acid), poly(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonate-benyl
methacrylate-butyl acrylate), poly(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane-
sulfonate-styrene-ethyl acrylate-acrylic acid), poly(2-
acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonate-butyl methacrylate-
methacrylic acid), poly(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonate-
benzyl methacrylate-methacrylic acid), poly(2-acrylamido-2-
methylpropanesulfonate-butyl acrylate-methacrylic acid),
poly(vinyl sulfonate-styrene-butyl acrylate-acrylic acid),
poly(vinyl sulfonate-styrene butyl acrylate), poly(vinyl
sulfonate-styrene-acrylonitrile-acrylic acid), poly (vinyl
sulfonate-styrene-butadiene-acrylic acid), poly(vinyl sulfonate-
styrene-vinyl acetate-acrylic acid), poly(vinyl sulfonate-
styrene-butyl acrylate-methacrylic acid), poly(vinyl sulfonate-
ethyl methacrylate-acrylic acid), poly(vinyl sulfonate-benzyl
methacrylate-acrylic acid), poly(vinyl sulfonate-styrene-methyl
acrylate-acrylic acid), poly(vinyl sulfonate-styrene-ethyl
acrylate-acrylic acid), poly(vinyl sulfonate-butyl methacrylate-
butyl acrylate), poly(vinyl sulfonate-benzyl methacrylate-
methacrylic acid), and preferably, poly(2-acrylamido-2-
methylpropanesulfonate-styrene-butyl acrylate-acrylic acid),
poly(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonate-styrene-butyl
acrylate), poly(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonate-benzyl
methacrylate-acrylic acid), and poly(vinyl sulfonate-styrene-
butyl acrylate-acrylic acid).

35. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein subsequent
to polymerization there is formed a polymer selected from the
group consisting of poly(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonate-
styrene-butyl acrylate-acrylic acid), poly(2-acrylamido-2-
Appeal No. 2002-0178
Application 09/385,909

24

methylpropanesulfonate-styrene-acrylonitrile-acrylic acid),
poly(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonate-styrene-butadiene-
acrylic acid), poly(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonate-
styrene-vinyl acetate-acrylic acid), poly(2-acrylamido-2-
methylpropanesulfonate-styrene-butyl acrylate-methacrylic acid),
and poly(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonate-styrene-butyl
acrylate).

36. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein subsequent
to polymerization there is formed a polymer selected from the
group consisting of poly(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonate-
benzyl methacrylate-acrylic acid), poly(2-acrylamido-2-methyl-
propanesulfonate-benzyl methacrylate-butyl acrylate), poly(2-
acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonate-styrene-ethyl acrylate-
acrylic acid), poly(2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonate-butyl
methacrylate-methacrylic acid), poly(2-acrylamido-2-methyl-
propanesulfonate-benzyl methacrylate-methacrylic acid), poly(2-
acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonate-butyl acrylate-methacrylic
acid), poly(vinyl sulfonate-styrene-butyl acrylate-acrylic acid),
poly(vinyl sulfonate-styrene-butyl acrylate), poly(vinyl
sulfonate-styrene-acrylonitrile-acrylic acid), and poly(vinyl
sulfonate-styrene-butadiene-acrylic acid).

37. A process in accordance with claim 1 wherein subsequent
to polymerization there is formed a polymer of poly(vinyl
sulfonate-styrene-butyl acrylate-acrylic acid).

41. A process in accordance with claim 6 wherein said
styrene functional monomer is selected from the group consisting
of styrene, α-methylstyrene, 4-methylstyrene, 3-chlorostyrene,
2,5-dichlorostyrene, 4-bromostyrene, 4-tertbutylstyrene, and 4-
methoxystryrene.

43. A process for the preparation of an ink consisting
essentially of mixing an ink vehicle, a colorant and a latex
generated by the polymerization of a mixture of olefinic
monomers, wherein at least one of said olefinic monomers is an
ionic sulfonate monomer and which polymerization is accomplished
in the presence of an anionic surfactant, and a nonionic
surfactant.