Appeal No. 96-2850
Application 08/015,400
blanket underlay 13, which is disposed between an outer rubber
blanket 30 and the periphery of the oscillating blanket
cylinder, in regions where the blanket cylinder exhibits
reduced printing pressure to make the printing pressure more
uniform. Such a teaching would not have suggested the
examiner’s proposed modification of Wirz’ foil 1 for solving a
problem not recognized or addressed by either of the applied
references. If anything, Kobler suggests the concept of
providing one of Wirz’ blanket cylinders 13, 16 with an
underlay having increased thickness in certain regions to
compensate for oscillations of the cylinder. Such a
suggestion, however, would not arrive at the claimed
invention.
In the final analysis, the only way the examiner could
have arrived at his conclusion of obviousness is through
hindsight based on appellant’s teachings. Hindsight analysis,
however, is clearly improper. In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436,
443, 230 USPQ 313, 316 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In summary, the appeal as to claim 7 is dismissed, the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007