International Imaging Materials, Inc.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.

16/951,188 11/18/2020 James West Blease 1050 006 301 0201 1004 37211 7590 10/02/2025 EXAMINER

Dawson Law Firm, P.C.

1844 Penfield Road

BARZACH, JEFFREY EUGENE

PENFIELD, NY 14526

ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER

1731

NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE

10/02/2025 ELECTRONIC

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.

The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es):

usptomail@bnpatentlaw.com

PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

1

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte JAMES WEST BLEASE, TIMOTHY MICHAEL CHEWENS, LIANHUI CONG, DANIEL JUDE HARRISON, and

JOHN RICHARD PRZYBYLO

____________

Appeal 2025-000561 Application 16/951,188 Technology Center 1700 ____________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

The Appellant¹requests review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-7.²We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We affirm.

2

Appeal 2025-000561 Application 16/951,188

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

Claim 1, the sole pending independent claim, illustrates the subject matter on appeal, and reads as follows:

1. An ink, having a viscosity of 2.5 to 15 centipoise at 25°C, for textile printing consisting essentially of:

a pigment;

a water dispersible anionic polymeric resin; a water soluble zero volatile organic compound solvent with a boiling point of 250°C or greater; a crosslinking agent; and

water;

said water dispersible anionic polymeric resin, formed from dry resin solids, having particles with a median volume weighted size of less than 150 nm and a 95^thpercentile volume weighted size of less than 250 nm;

said water dispersible anionic polymeric resin having an acid number value of 5 to 40 mg KOH/g, a resin film elongation of 500 to 1200%, and a film tensile strength of 10 to

60 MPa; said crosslinking agent being less than 15 parts per 100 parts of the dry resin solids.

Appeal Br. 10 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).

REJECTIONS

The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-7 under

35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ogawa,³or alternatively, over Ogawa in view of Rajaraman⁴and Morita⁵as evidenced by Popat⁶and Litman,⁷in the Examiner's Answer entered July 19, 2024 ("Ans.").

2

Appeal 2025-000561 Application 16/951,188

FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

After considering the evidence relied upon in this appeal and each of the Appellant's contentions, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for reasons set forth in the Final Action, the Answer, and below.

We review appealed rejections for reversible error based on the arguments and evidence the Appellant provides for each issue the Appellant identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) ("Filing a Board appeal does not, unto itself, entitle an appellant to de novo review of all aspects of a rejection. If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue — or, more broadly, on a particular rejection — the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection."), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that "it has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections").

The Appellant presents arguments directed to claim 1 only, to which we accordingly limit our discussion. Appeal Br. 4-9; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

The Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's finding that Ogawa discloses a textile inkjet ink as recited in claim 1, except that Ogawa does not disclose including a crosslinking agent in the ink in an amount less than 15 parts per 100 parts of dry resin solids. Compare Final Act. 2-6, with Appeal Br. 4-9.

3

Appeal 2025-000561 Application 16/951,188 The Appellant argues that Ogawa discloses that including a crosslinking agent in its ink in an amount below 15 parts per 100 parts of dry resin solids "would negatively impact the film properties of the resulting ink film." Appeal Br. 6. The Appellant argues that Ogawa teaches a specific range of crosslinking agent of 15 to 250 parts per 100 parts of dry resin solids "to strike a balance between negatively impacting the film properties of the resulting ink film, negatively impacting wet friction fastness, and decreasing texture." Id. The Appellant argues that Ogawa discloses

"multiple ink examples" that include a crosslinking agent in an amount exceeding that recited in claim 1. Id. at 4-5.

Ogawa, however, discloses including a crosslinking agent in its ink preferably in an amount of 0.15 parts by weight or more with respect to 1 part by weight of water-dispersible resin to secure fastness, particularly wet friction fastness, and to avoid "a decrease in texture." Ogawa p. 4 ¶ 8. Ogawa discloses that "[t]he amount is preferably 2.5 parts by weight or less, and more preferably from 0.15 to 0.6 parts by weight from the viewpoint of the film properties of the resulting ink film." Id. (emphasis added). Ogawa's disclosure of a preference for including a crosslinking agent in an amount of 2.5 parts by weight or less⁸would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that amounts falling within this range, such as an amount less than 15 parts by weight as recited in claim 1, would be suitable for producing a satisfactory ink. Ogawa's indication that a crosslinking amount of 0.15 to 0.6 parts by weight is "more preferred" would have

4

Appeal 2025-000561 Application 16/951,188 suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that suitable amounts of crosslinking agent are not strictly limited to only amounts within the more preferred range, particularly in view of Ogawa's broader disclosure of a

"preferred" crosslinking amount of 2.5 parts by weight or less. Ogawa's disclosure of this broader "preferred" range of 2.5 parts by weight or less reasonably would have suggested that crosslinker amounts slightly outside Ogawa's "more preferred" range, such as slightly less than 0.15 parts by weight, could be used to produce an inkjet ink having satisfactory fastness and texture, particularly in view of the absence in Ogawa of any disclosure of an absolute lower limit on the crosslinker agent amount. Although the amount of crosslinking agent used in Ogawa's experimental examples was greater than 0.15 parts by weight, Ogawa's disclosures are not limited to the experimental examples. In re Francalossi,

681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1 (CCPA 1982) ("It is axiomatic that a reference must be considered in its entirety, and it is well established that the disclosure of a reference is not limited to specific working examples contained therein."

(citing In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976))); In re Mercier,

515 F.2d 1161, 1165 (CCPA 1975) ("[A]ll of the relevant teachings of the cited references must be considered in determining what they fairly teach to one having ordinary skill in the art.").

Moreover, as the Examiner points out (Final Act. 5), a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed composition includes amounts of components in ranges that do not overlap corresponding ranges of components in a prior art composition, but the claimed and prior art ranges are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the claimed and prior art compositions to have the same properties. Titanium

5

Appeal 2025-000561 Application 16/951,188 Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In such circumstances, the burden shifts to the appellant to demonstrate "that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff,

919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals, 778 F.2d at 783; In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

In view of the closeness of the 0.15 parts by weight or more crosslinking agent amount disclosed in Ogawa, and the crosslinking agent amount of less than 0.15 parts by weight recited in claim 1, which includes, for example, 0.149999 parts by weight, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have expected that such a slight difference between these amounts would not result in any appreciable or practical differences between inks including these differing amounts of crosslinking agents. Stated another way, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have expected from Ogawa's disclosures that slight variations in the amount of crosslinking agent included in Ogawa's ink—such as an amount slightly lower than 0.15 parts by weight as recited in claim 1—could be tolerated without adversely affecting the properties of the resulting ink, rendering the recited range prima facie obvious. Final Act. 5 (citing Titanium Metals, 778 F.2d at 783). The burden, therefore, shifts to the Appellant to demonstrate the criticality of the crosslinking agent amount recited in claim 1. On the record before us, the Appellant does not meet this burden because the Appellant does not argue, much less demonstrate, that ink including a crosslinking agent in an amount as recited in claim 1 produces unexpected results relative to ink including a crosslinking agent in an amount disclosed in Ogawa. Woodruff, 919 F.2d at 1578 (indicating that in cases in which the difference

6

Appeal 2025-000561 Application 16/951,188 between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims, "the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range").

The Appellant challenges the Examiner's reliance on Titanium Metals, arguing that, unlike Titanium Metals, which was directed to the

"predictable art" of metallurgy, the present invention is directed to the

"unpredictable art" of organic chemistry. Appeal Br. 6. As the Examiner points out, however, it was known in the art that ink compositions containing ingredients similar to those of the composition of claim 1, including a crosslinking agent of a similar amount, exhibit improved washing/dry abrasion fastness and texture, demonstrating the predictable nature of the properties of such ink compositions. Ans. 11. More specifically, Sato,⁹which the Examiner cites in the Final Action as pertinent prior art made of record and not relied upon (Final Act. 9), discloses an inkjet composition for textile printing that contains a pigment, a water-dispersible resin, a water-soluble organic solvent, a pigment, and water. Sato ¶¶ 1, 5, 31. Sato discloses that "the crosslinking agent must be contained by 0.03 to 0.17 parts by mass, but it may be contained by preferably 0.05 to 0.15 parts by mass, or more preferably 0.07 to 0.12 parts by mass, relative to 1 part by mass of the water-dispersible resin." Id. ¶ 19. According to Sato, "[i]f the content is less than 0.03 parts by mass, washing fastness and dry abrasion fastness will drop," and "[i]f it exceeds 0.17 parts by mass, on the other hand, post-cure texture will become poor." Id. ¶ 20.

7

Appeal 2025-000561 Application 16/951,188 As the Examiner explains, "in addition to the closeness of the two ranges" disclosed in Ogawa and recited in claim 1, "the prior art itself supports a reasonable expectation of similar properties (i.e., fastness and texture) between the two ranges," rendering the recited range prima facie obvious. Ans. 11 (citing Sato ¶ 19).

The Appellant argues that the present Specification "teaches the tension between having enough crosslinking agent to . . . enhance the tethering of the ink to the fabric while avoiding an increased viscosity of the ink (raising the likelihood of clog inkjet ports and poor injections of the ink)," and the Appellant "found a balance" in the range recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. The Appellant argues that Ogawa's range of 15 to 60 parts by weight crosslinking agent "increases the viscosity of the ink, thereby causing a greater likelihood clogged inkjet ports and poor injection of the ink," and Ogawa "fails to teach or suggest that a range lower than the 15 to 60 parts with respect to 1 part by weight of the water-dispersible resin would provide sufficient tethering properties to tether the ink to the fabric." Id. The Appellant, however, does not provide any citation to the asserted disclosures in the Specification, and we are unable to find such disclosures. Rather, the Specification discloses that the organic solvent present in the Appellant's ink acts primarily as both a humectant and viscosity control aid to reduce moisture loss from the ink, enabling more reliable ink ejection, and modifying the ink's viscosity to a range suitable for consistent ejection from the print head. Spec. ¶ 29. The Specification further indicates that the resin particle size "is important for proper function of the inkjet print head"

because large resin particles can clog the print head and "promote unstable or non-ejection of ink from the print head nozzles." Id. ¶¶ 71, 72.

8

Appeal 2025-000561 Application 16/951,188 The Specification further indicates that "[r]egardless of the type of crosslinking agent or how the crosslinking agent is incorporated into the inkjet textile ink, any bonding between ink and the textile fiber depends substantially on the type of fiber, or more specifically, on the physical and chemical micro-structure of the fiber surface, and the availability of reactive functional groups on the surface of the fiber, namely its chemical composition." Id. ¶ 98. The Specification goes on to explain that some fiber types do not have sufficient functional groups to allow tethering of ink via a crosslinking agent and "bonding of the ink to the substrate is afforded by mechanical properties and micro-structure of the fiber surface, namely affixation by polymeric adhesion and physical interweaving and entanglement." Id. ¶ 100.

The Specification thus indicates that features of the Appellant's ink— other than the amount of crosslinking agent— ensure reliable ejection from a print head and enable tethering of the ink to textile fibers. The Appellant does not provide any evidence to support the assertion that Ogawa's crosslinking agent amount of 15 to 60 parts by weight would increase the viscosity of the ink, causing a greater likelihood of clogged inkjet ports and poor injection of the ink, and would not permit tethering of the ink to fabric. The Appellant's unsupported assertion that Ogawa's ink would have these characteristics does not constitute the requisite evidence necessary to establish this factual question. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."); Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017)

9

Appeal 2025-000561 Application 16/951,188 ("[a]ttorney argument is not evidence" and cannot rebut other admitted evidence).

As for the Examiner's alternative rejection of claim 1 over Ogawa in view of Rajaraman and Morita as evidenced by Popat and Litman, the Appellant argues that the Examiner does not demonstrate that each of the secondary references teaches or would have suggested a crosslinking agent amount of less than 15 parts per 100 parts of dry resin solids, as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 8. As discussed above, however, the Examiner establishes that Ogawa would have suggested such a crosslinking agent amount.

The Appellant's arguments, therefore, do not identify reversible error in either of the Examiner's rejections of claim 1. We, accordingly, sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION SUMMARY

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with

this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

10