Appeal No. 1999-0231 Application No. 08/472,354 [i]t would have been obvious . . . to utilize the mounting and supporting system in Fellows for any conventional printing member, including a blanket cylinder and printing blanket such as exemplified by each of Arkell (GB 1 401 695), Tittgemeyer, Vrotacoe and Fischer. The motivation would have involved merely the desire to obtain the expected and desired results from a choice of conventional tubular sleeve members. Id. The appellants argue in the main brief (p. 4) that the combination of the expansion means for installation and removal of an undersized gapless tubular printing blanket and the means extending axially across a length of the blanket cylinder for removal of the fluid wave is not taught or suggested by Fellows or Arkell, either individually or in combination. We agree. The embodiment shown in Figure 1 of Fellows does include an expansion means for installation and removal of an undersized gapless tubular printing blanket in the form of passageway 16 and grooves 10b. However, as we have interpreted claim 1, supra, the language “a means extending axially across a length of the blanket cylinder 11Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007