Appeal No. 1999-1164
Application No. 08/715,559
Scott Paper Company 1,489,308 Oct. 19, 1977
(Great Britain)
Research Disclosure, no. 19201, “Method and material for the production of a dry
planographic printing plate”, (April 1980).
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fuller in view of Lewis, Leenders, the British reference and Herrmann,
and claims 1-20 stand correspondingly rejected over these references and further in view
of the Research Disclosure reference.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for a complete exposition of
the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants and by the examiner concerning the
above-noted rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we cannot sustain either of these rejections.
The method defined by appealed independent claim 1 distinguishes over the
method of Fuller by requiring that the here claimed rubbing step be practiced with a liquid
composition comprising a major proportion of non-solvent, at least a portion of the non-
solvent providing mechanical lubrication, and a minor proportion of solvent for byproducts
of the ink-rejecting and the ink-receptive materials. While Fuller teaches
a rubbing step which includes the use of cleaning fluids (e.g., see lines 21-38 in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007