Appeal No. 99-0872
Application 08/885,399
material supported on and transferred by a skeleton wheel while on route between printing
stations as a printing plate in the context of the appellant’s claimed invention, that view is
without support on this record. Similarly, DeMoore’s skeleton wheel cannot be regarded
as a plate cylinder in the context of the appellant’s claimed invention, since it does not
receive or engage a printing plate. It is not necessary to find whether the two DeMoore
patents constitute analogous art proper for consideration in combination with Simeth,
because even considering the teachings therein as are explained by the examiner, the
rejection of the claims cannot stand.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 2-5 and 30-34 cannot be
sustained.
We make the following additional discussion concerning dependent claims 3-5
which set forth respective Markush groups for the friction reducing material. Once the
examiner has made a specific finding that all of the materials listed in the Markush group of
these claims are known or art-recognized materials having friction reducing properties, as
the examiner apparently has done on page 10 of the answer, the appellant must step
forward to dispute the finding affirmatively. Whether the examiner had proper ground to
make the finding is immaterial if the appellant while in rebuttal does not dispute the finding.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 2-5 and 30-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007