Appeal No. 1998-1024
Application 08/511,703
claim of this group with any reasonable degree of specificity apart from claim 1. Accordingly, we will
treat claims 1-10 as standing or falling on the limitations of claim 1. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567,
1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137,
140 (CCPA 1978); In re Hellsund, 474 F.2d 1307, 1310, 177 USPQ 170, 172 (CCPA 1973).
The examiner rejected claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Tappet
in view of Rodi and Mamberer. The examiner has reasonably found, and appellants have not disputed,
that (1) Tappet (Answer, pages 11-12) discloses a press combination generally as claimed, including
separate drive motors for individual printing units, (2) Rodi (Answer, pages 12-15) teaches a control
device for controlling register adjustment of several printing units that use a single drive motor and a
means for supplying to the control device information regarding printing-specific variables, and (3)
Mamberer (Answer, pages 15-16) teaches press units that are individually controllable by drive motors
which are responsive to a microprocessor. Based on these teachings, the examiner then logically
concluded (Answer, pages 16-17) that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to control the power flow to the individual motors in Tappert in
accordance with the teachings in Rodi and Mamberer, that is, to utilize a control processing system
which determines, from the printing specific variables, load-torque changes in the printing units,
individually and energizes the drive motors so as to produce a desired power flow in the press drive
system.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007