Appeal No. 98-1014
Application 08/521,013
900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, the prior art does not suggest the
desirability, and thus the obviousness, of the proposed
modification. Accordingly, we do not consider that the Chew reference would have taught one of
ordinary skill in the art that a prior art method and/or apparatus for erasing an ink carrying layer from
the surface of a image-carrying printing form should be provided with a cleaning jet inclined at an angle
less that 90E relative to the surface of the printing form.
Third, we do not agree with the examiner that the requirement of method claim 1 that the
printing form is simultaneously rendered hydrophilic by the pressurized jet is inherently met by the
teachings of the applied references. Inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities,
and the mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient. In re
Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981).
In light of the above, the § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 7-10 is not sustainable.
Turning to the § 103 rejection of claims 2, 5 and 6, the Gregory reference additionally applied
in this rejection does not render obvious what we have found to be lacking in the evidentiary basis
relied upon by the examiner in the rejection of claims 1 and 7-10. Accordingly, this rejection also will
not be sustained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007