Appeal No. 2003-1147
Application No. 09/598,580
and ‘performing the step of zonally metering the ink to
counteract ink transfer distributor [sic, disturbances] caused by
a stroke movement of a distributor roller’ in claim 11 are met by
the teachings of Thünker et al” (Examiner’s Answer, page 4). See
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567-68,
1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 41 U.S. 1052
(1987) (In making a patentability determination, analysis must
begin with a question, “What is the invention claimed?” since
“[c]laim interpretation . . . will normally control the remainder
of the decisional process.”)
Thünker teaches a method wherein a first ink profile is set
at the adjustable ink zone metering arrangement and, thereafter,
the first ink zone profile is produced by initiating operation of
the printing apparatus, including the distributor roller. See
Thünker, column 4, lines 32-36. After the first print job is
printed, a second print job is effected by adjusting the
adjustable ink zone metering arrangement and varying the
determinable lateral stroke of the distributor roller in relation
to adjustment of the ink zone metering arrangement. Id. at
lines 45-50. Thus, contrary to appellant’s contention, the
lateral stroke of the distributor roller in Thünker is not
adjusted “in dependence” on the ink zone metering arrangement,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007