Appeal No. 98-1014
Application 08/521,013
Appellant’s invention pertains to a method and apparatus for erasing an ink carrying layer from
an impervious surface of an image-containing printing form that is usable for offset printing. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of independent method claim 1 and
independent apparatus claim 9, copies of which are found in an appendix to appellant’s brief.
The references of record relied upon by the examiner in support of rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 are:
Gregory et al (Gregory) 3,801,369 Apr. 2, 1974
Roberts 3,800,702 Apr. 2, 1974
IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Vol. No. 8, January 1983, T. A. Bergh et al, pp 4116-
4117.2
In addition, the examiner relies on appellant’s admitted prior art as set forth on pages 2 and 3 of
the specification.
Claims 1 and 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
appellant’s admitted prior art in view of Roberts and Chew. Claims 2, 5 and 6 stand rejected similarly
rejected with further reliance on Gregory.
Looking at the rejection of claims 1 and 7-10, the examiner considers (answer, page 3) that
appellant admits on pages 2 and 3 of the specification that
2Both appellant and the examiner refer to this publication by its second named author, Chew.
In order to avoid confusion, we will do likewise.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007