Appeal No. 1999-1164
Application No. 08/715,559
column 18), no details concerning the composition or characteristics of this cleaning fluid
are disclosed. In essence, it is the examiner’s ultimate conclusion that the here-applied
secondary references would have suggested providing Fuller’s method with a cleaning
fluid of the type specifically defined by the appellants’ independent claim.
We agree with the appellants’ basic position, however, that the applied prior art
contains no teaching or suggestion of providing Fuller’s method with a liquid composition
corresponding to the one defined by appealed independent claim 1. In support of his
contrary view, the examiner urges that the Lewis and Herrmann references in particular
would have suggested a liquid composition comprising a major proportion of non-solvent
providing mechanical lubrication and a minor proportion of solvent as here claimed. More
specifically, the examiner contends that “Herrmann . . . establishes that mixtures where
the non-solvent material (isopropanol) constitutes more of the mixture than the solvent
(aliphatic hydrocarbons) have been used to clean silicone based lithographic printing
plates and that a useful printing plate resulted” (answer, page 11). With respect to the
appealed claim 1 requirement that at least a portion of the non-solvent provide mechanical
lubrication, the examiner “holds” that “the isopropanol [of Herrmann] inherently lubricates
dry surfaces to some degree as it is a fluid” (answer, page 8). The examiner’s viewpoint
on this matter is not well taken.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007