Ex Parte Brocklin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 26, 2012

11393536 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ANDREW L. VAN BROCKLIN, SUSAN E. BAILEY,
and MAKARAND P. GORE
____________

Appeal 2011-002669
Application 11/393,536
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, HUBERT C. LORIN, and
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-10 and 20-24 as unpatentable
over Goswami (US 6,492,076 B1 issued Dec. 12, 2002). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2011-002669
Application 11/393,536

2
Appellants claim a radiation imageable coating comprising a first
thermochromic layer including a bleachable antenna dye and a second
thermochromic layer including a non-bleachable antenna dye (independent
claim 1; see also independent claim 20).
Representative claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A radiation imageable coating comprising:

a first thermochromic layer including a bleachable antenna dye; and

a second thermochromic layer including a non-bleachable antenna
dye.
The above rejection is based on the Examiner's finding that Goswami
discloses a radiation imageable coating which comprises a bleachable
antenna dye as required by the appealed claims (Ans. 3-4).
Appellants argue that Goswami contains no teaching or suggestion of
a bleachable antenna dye wherein "bleachable" is specifically defined in
their Specification "to mean that when the dye is exposed to diffuse or
focused light of a predetermined wavelength, the antenna dye is deactivated,
no longer functioning as an antenna dye at said [predetermined] wavelength"
(Spec. para. [0033]) (App. Br. 9 (see also id. at 10-15; Reply Br. 4-9)).
The Examiner has not provided this record with any basis for
believing that the dyes of Goswami are "bleachable" as defined in the
Specification.1 As a consequence, Appellants' argument is persuasive in the
record before us.

1 This deficiency of the Examiner's rejection is exacerbated with respect to
independent claim 20 which additionally requires bleachable dyes with
different absorbance maximum wavelengths but wherein these dyes "are
Appeal 2011-002669
Application 11/393,536

3
It follows that we cannot sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 1-10
and 20-24 as unpatentable over Goswami.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

ssl

both configured to be bleached when exposed to a single known wavelength
of light".