Appeal No. 95-3865
Application 07/714,568
The examiner states that Examples 1-3 of Jain disclose the
same two-layer coating compositions as present in the appealed
claims (answer, page 5). The examiner recognizes that Jain is
deficient in failing to disclose or teach a roughened and
anodized aluminum substrate (answer, page 7), failing to disclose
the 1,2-naphthoquinone diazide 5-sulfonyl ester in both light
sensitive layers (answer, page 6), and the seemingly
contradictory disclosure of using dyes in the first (closest to
the substrate) layer while exemplifying dyes only in the second
layer (Examples 1-3, see the answer, page 12).
Regarding the failure of Jain to disclose the roughened and
anodized aluminum substrate of the claimed plate, the examiner
states that Jain teaches the use of an aluminum support even
though all the examples are directed to silicon supports (see
Jain, column 18, line 57-column 19, line 9, and the answer, page
5). The examiner further concludes that use of a roughened and
anodized aluminum support would have been obvious since Uehara
and Nishioka teach the benefits of using such a support with
photosensitive compositions in the manufacture of lithographic
printing plates, integrated circuits or a photomask (answer,
pages 7-9).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007