Appeal No. 1998-1440 Page 11
Application No. 08/368,452
disclose the use of ... water for at least about six (6) hours
...." (Reply Br. at 3.) They add, "even a hypothetical
combination of the two references does not disclose or suggest
the claimed limitations which include time ...." (Appeal Br.
at 10.)
Claims 4-16 each specifies in pertinent part the
following limitations: "contacting said polyether polyurethane
foam ink pad with cold deionized water for a time period of at
least about six (6) hours ...." Accordingly, the limitations
require contacting a foam ink pad with cold water for
approximately six hours at a minimum.
The examiner fails to show a suggestion of the
limitations in the prior art. “Obviousness may not be
established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or
suggestions of the inventor.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239
(Fed. Cir. 1995)(citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 311, 312-13
(Fed. Cir. 1983)). “The mere fact that the prior art may be
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007