Ex parte Zaher

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 30, 1999

08152080 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 1999)

Application for patent filed November 9, 1993. 1
According to appellant, this application is a continuation of
Application 07/777,295, filed December 6, 1991.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 30
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte MAXIMILIAN P. ZAHER
__________
Appeal No. 96-2061
Application 08/152,0801
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before KIMLIN, GARRIS, and PAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the final rejection
of claims 12 through 18 which are all of the claims remaining
Appeal No. 96-2061
Application No. 08/152,080
2
in the application.
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method of
creating a decorative design by applying multicolored
dyestuffs on and incorporating them in a substrate which
comprises the steps of placing a carrier with multicolored
dyestuffs on a substrate and transferring the dyestuffs from
the carrier to the substrate by heating the carrier with
infrared radiation, wherein the intensity of the infrared
radiation applied to the carrier is controlled in
correspondence with the prevalent color portions of the
multicolored dyestuffs to which the infrared radiation is
applied, the intensity of the infrared radiation applied to
the carrier being different for each color of said
multicolored dyestuffs carried thereby, said infrared
radiation thereby being directed inhomogeneously to the
carrier depending on the color distribution of the decorative
design. We refer to representative independent claim 12 of
record for further details of this appealed subject matter.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Vertegaal 4,060,382 Nov. 29, 1977
Appeal No. 96-2061
Application No. 08/152,080
3
Arai 4,399,749 Aug. 23, 1983
Haigh et al. 4,465,728 Aug. 14, 1984
(Haigh)
Kawasaki et al. 4,555,427 Nov. 26, 1985
(Kawasaki)
Fukui 4,820,310 Apr. 11, 1989
Fuchs (Germany) 3,904,424 Jan. 18, 1990
(translation copy attached)
Claims 12 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Fuchs in view of Haigh and Arai.
Claims 16 through 18 stand correspondingly rejected over these
references in various combinations with the other above listed
references relied upon by the examiner.
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellant and the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
OPINION
We will not sustain any of the rejections advanced by the
examiner on this appeal.
We are in substantial agreement with the basic position
advocated by the appellant that the applied references in
Appeal No. 96-2061
Application No. 08/152,080
4
general and Arai in particular contain no teaching or
suggestion of modifying the method of Fuchs whereby the
intensity of the infrared radiation is controlled in the
manner required by independent claim 12.
According to the examiner, “[i]t would have been obvious
to one having ordinary skill in the art to have applied
different amounts of infrared radiation to the different
colors in the design [of the Fuchs method] to compensate for
the different print characteristics of different colored dyes
because Arai teaches that is known to vary the time duration
of the heat applied as a function of the dye color to
compensate for the different print characteristics of
different colors” (office action mailed June 21, 1994 (Paper
No. 17), page 4). From our perspective, however, the
examiner’s obviousness conclusion is not adequately supported
by the Arai reference.
While the examiner is correct that Arai teaches varying
the time duration of heat application, this teaching alone
would not have suggested modifying Fuchs’ step of applying
infrared radiation by controlling the intensity of the
Appeal No. 96-2061
Application No. 08/152,080
5
infrared radiation as recited in appealed claim 12. Simply
stated, this is because the Arai teaching is limited to
varying the time duration of heat application rather than
controlling the intensity of any kind of application much less
the intensity of infrared radiation application as required by
the independent claim on appeal.
For the above stated reasons, we can not sustain any of
the section 103 rejections advanced by the examiner on this
appeal.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
Edward C. Kimlin )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Bradley R. Garris ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
Appeal No. 96-2061
Application No. 08/152,080
6
)
Chung K. Pak )
Administrative Patent Judge )
tdc
Appeal No. 96-2061
Application No. 08/152,080
7
Kevin E. McVeigh
General Electric Company
One Plastics Avenue
Pittsfield, MA 01201