Appeal No. 96-3874
Application 08/308,186
Pirsch 1,893,685 Jan. 10, 1933
Smith, Jr. (Smith) 4,050,378 Sept. 27, 1977
Miller 4,445,829 May 1, 1984
Webb 4,570,538 Feb. 18, 1986
Plager et al. (Plager) 5,337,791 Aug. 16, 1994
Claims 6, 7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Smith in view of each of Plager, Miller
and Pirsch. Claims 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Smith in view of each of Plager,
Miller and Pirsch, and further in view of Webb.
The examiner considers that Smith discloses in Figure 1 a
dampening system for a printing press comprising a spray bar 25,
a source of liquid 126, and a pressure regulator 130 connected to
the source of liquid by a first conduit (not numbered) and to the
spray bar by a second conduit 125. The examiner further
considers that each of Plager, Miller and Pirsch discloses the
conventional expedient of minimizing pulsations in a liquid
delivery line by utilizing an accumulator device charged with
air. The examiner concedes that Smith does not disclose an
accumulator in the dampening system thereof. It is the
examiner’s position, however, that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art “to broadly utilize an
accumulator in the feed line of Smith” (answer, page 4) in
accordance with the teachings of each of Plager, Miller and
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007