Appeal No. 99-0872
Application 08/885,399
may be necessary and that that layer can be affixed to either the printing plate or the plate
cylinder constitutes improper hindsight. The examiner’s citation to the two DeMoore
patents do not provide a remedy to the above-discussed deficiencies in the rejection. In
that regard, the examiner states (answer at 9):
[E]ach [DeMoore] patent teaches that a friction reducing
material (“Teflon”) can be applied directly onto a printing press
cylinder, and DeMoore (4,402,267) additionally teaches the
equivalency between: (1) applying a friction reducing material
directly to a press cylinder, and (2) applying a friction reducing
material onto an intermediate layer residing on a press
cylinder.
Both DeMoore patents, however, are directed to applying a separating medium
onto a skeleton wheel or cylindrical roller, a printing press component which is used for
supporting and transferring freshly inked printed material between printing stations and
which is neither a plate cylinder or a printing plate in the context of the appellant’s claimed
invention. As disclosed, the skeleton wheel or cylindrical roller described in the DeMoore
patents do not engage or contact any printing plate. Moreover, the TEFLON coating
applied to the skeleton wheel of DeMoore ‘644 is intended as an ink repellant, not a
friction reducing layer to facilitate relative movement between the skeleton wheel and the
printed material supported thereby. Note DeMoore ‘644 which states in column 6, lines
29-37:
The surface 50 so prepared is ink-repellant. As the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007