Appeal No. 1999-1348
Application No. 08/435,798
8, 10-16, 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and reversing the
rejections of claims 4, 17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, claim
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and claims 3, 22 and 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Appellants seek rehearing only
of our affirmance of the examiner’s decision to reject claims
3 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants’ request (page 1) contends that the Board
wrongly characterized the rollers of Rhorer and Goettsch as
resilient anilox rollers in the earlier decision. However,
appellants have failed to clearly articulate a definition of
resilient anilox roller or “anilox roller having a resilient
transfer surface” (the language used in claims 3 and 23) which
distinguishes over the Rhorer and Goettsch rollers. The only
structural feature of an “anilox” roller set forth in
appellants’ specification is that “[t]he surface of an anilox
roller is engraved with an array of closely spaced, shallow
depressions referred to as ‘cells’” (page 12). From this, the
Board interpreted an “anilox roller” as “an applicator roller
having a surface engraved with an array of closely spaced,
shallow depressions” (decision, page 4). For the reasons set
forth on page 15 of the earlier decision, it is our view that
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007