Appeal No. 1999-0291
Application No. 08/646,077
As set forth in the Answer at page 7, Reichel, the second reference in the rejection,
is submitted to show the obviousness of Palmatier including a “sleeve-shaped printing
plate” on a plate cylinder. The rejection thus does not provide any rationale for why the
artisan may have been motivated to modify Palmatier’s system such that a speed
difference between the speed of the printing press and the speed of the printing plate is
determined. The rejection instead is based on the position that Palmatier’s system
determines the relevant speed difference and reduces the difference in the manner recited
in the claims.
The rejection does not point out in Palmatier where this critical disclosure resides.
The reference consistently refers to a “speed” signal from tachometer 24, but does not
refer to the “register mark error signal” as a “speed” signal. Nor does Palmatier explicitly
disclose determining any speed difference between the relevant signals. As described in
column 4, lines 54 through 63, the control signals to the DC motors for correcting
misregister “are generated in accordance with a preprogrammed procedure stored in the
internal memory of the computer 70 in response to the signal...from tachometer 24 and the
signals...from the register mark sensors....”
Since Palmatier fails to expressly disclose the speed detection and the control
algorithm attributed to the reference by the examiner, the rejection stands (or falls) on the
principle that the Palmatier system inherently does the things attributed. That is, the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007