Appeal No. 1999-0231
Application No. 08/472,354
[i]t would have been obvious . . . to utilize the
mounting and supporting system in Fellows for any
conventional printing member, including a blanket
cylinder and printing blanket such as exemplified by
each of Arkell (GB 1 401 695), Tittgemeyer, Vrotacoe
and Fischer. The motivation would have involved
merely the desire to obtain the expected and desired
results from a choice of conventional tubular sleeve
members.
Id.
The appellants argue in the main brief (p. 4) that the
combination of the expansion means for installation and
removal
of an undersized gapless tubular printing blanket and the
means extending axially across a length of the blanket
cylinder for removal of the fluid wave is not taught or
suggested by Fellows or Arkell, either individually or in
combination. We agree.
The embodiment shown in Figure 1 of Fellows does include
an expansion means for installation and removal of an
undersized gapless tubular printing blanket in the form of
passageway 16 and grooves 10b. However, as we have
interpreted claim 1, supra, the language “a means extending
axially across a length of the blanket cylinder
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007