Appeal No. 99-0872
Application 08/885,399
plate mounting surface; (2) the plate cylinder mounting surface, or (3) both the printing plate
and plate cylinder mounting surfaces, that does not indicate anything meaningful about the
appellant’s claimed feature of having the friction reducing layer affixed to just one of the
mounting surfaces but not the other.
The examiner has not articulated any motivation for one with ordinary skill in the art
to eliminate one of the thin sheets 5 or 6 or one of the plastic coating layers 8 and 10 in
Simeth. Instead, the examiner states (answer at 8):
It is noted that Appellant’s specification does not teach that
there is any criticality as to whether the friction reducing layer
is affixed to either one or both of the printing plate and plate
cylinder. The specification does not disclose that anyone of
such layer or coating placements, one relative to the other,
affects the desired and expected function of improving the
ease of mounting and adjusting a printing plate on the outer
surface of a plate cylinder. In fact, Appellant’s specification
teaches, and the original presentation of the claims evidences,
that the friction reducing material can be applied either: (1) to
the printing plate; (2) to the plate cylinder; or (3) to both
surfaces.
An applicant for patent need not disclose in its specification that there is any so
called “criticality” in a claimed limitation or feature. Nor is the applicant under any burden
to establish that there is any such “criticality.” Also, that the appellant’s specification
discloses alternative embodiments does not by itself indicate that the differences between
the embodiments are not of patentable significance. Furthermore, relying on the
appellant’s own specification to come to the conclusion that only one friction reducing layer
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007