Appeal No. 94-4489
Application No. 07/857,216
We have carefully reviewed the entire record before us,
including all of the arguments advanced by the examiner and
appellants in support of their respective positions. This
review leads us to conclude that the examiner’s rejection is
well-founded. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection for essentially those reasons expressed in the
Answer and the Supplemental Answer. We add the following
primarily for emphasis.
At the outset, we note that appellants have grouped the
above appealed claims together. See Brief, page 4 and Reply
Brief, page 1. Accordingly, we will focus on claim 1 only,
the broadest claim on appeal. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5)(1993).
In the Background of the Invention, appellants state (see
specification, page 4, lines 15-24) that:
More recently, it has been found preferable to
produce printing blankets having a compressible layer
comprising a cellular resilient polymer having
cells or voids in the compressible layer formed
with the use of discrete microspheres. It has
been found particularly advantageous to produce
a compressible layer by incorporating hollow
thermoplastic microspheres in the polymer, as
illustrated by Larson U.S. patent No. 4,042,743.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007