Appeal No. 97-1442
Application 08/353,631
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Domotor in view of Shepherd. We find that Domotor discloses and depicts in
Figures 1 and 2 a lithographic press having a plate cylinder 2, a first ink roller 42 and a second ink
roller 43. Domotor also discloses positively driving the first ink roller 42 at a surface speed which
is different from the surface speed of the plate cylinder 2 to eliminate printing blemishes (Col. 1,
line 63 through Col. 2, line 20; Col. 3, lines 56-62).
Shepherd discloses a duplicating machine in which the rotation of an exit advancing roller
28 for the work piece is synchronized with the rotation of an entrance advancing roller 27 by
gears so that the peripheral velocity of the exit roller 28 is slightly in excess of that of the entrance
roller 27 (Col. 4, line 65 - Col. 5, line 6). It is the examiner’s position that:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to provide the two inking rollers of Domotor with gears of
proper diameters and a meshing idler gear as taught by Shepherd to achieve the
surface speed differential between the two ink rollers as desired. The mere
application of a known mechanical gearing arrangement over another by those
having ordinary skill in the art based upon its well known properties and intended
use for the purpose of obtaining an expected outcome would involve no apparent
unobviousness. [Examiner’s Answer at page 4].
We cannot agree. In contrast to statements made by the examiner (Examiner’s Answer at page
7), Domotor discloses rotating one ink roller at a different surface speed than the plate cylinder
(see col. 3, lines 56-62). There simply is nothing in Domotor which discloses, teaches or suggests
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007