Appeal No. 99-0872
Application 08/885,399
inked areas of the printed sheets 30 engage the surface, there
is no transfer of ink from one sheet, to the skeleton wheel 12,
and thereafter to one or more succeeding sheets. While there
may be an extremely slight collection of ink on the surface 50,
quite unexpectedly there is still no marking of subsequent
sheets. Thus, the surface is ink-repellant in the sense that it
prevents transfer of ink between sheets.
DeMoore ’267 improves on DeMoore ‘644 by adding a fabric piece 32 between the
skeleton wheel and the printed material it supports. To support this fabric piece, a fabric
2
base layer coated with fluoroplastic is first bonded to the surface of the skeleton wheel.
Note DeMoore ‘267 from column 3, line 60 to column 4, line 2, which states:
Although the fluoroplastic covered skeleton wheel disclosed in
my previous patent provided improvements in handling freshly
inked sheet material I have discovered that, unexpectedly, the
provision of a layer of fabric on the supporting surface of the
skeleton wheel and rather loosely secured thereto further
enhances the ability of the skeleton wheel to support and
convey successive sheets of printed material with wet ink
thereon without transferring the wet ink from a previous sheet
to a successive sheet and without marring or depressing the
surface of the paper.
We find none of this disclosure from the DeMoore patents to be of substantial
significance in the context of the appellant’s claimed invention. The examiner has not
adequately explained why the teachings of DeMoore as is recognized by the examiner
would have suggested to one with ordinary skill in the art that one of Simeth’s friction
reducing layers can be removed or eliminated. If the examiner regards a sheet of printed
2
Thus, the examiner’s above-quoted statement finds that in DeMoore ‘267 the fluoroplastic
material is applied to an intermediate layer residing on the skeleton wheel.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007