Appeal No. 1999-1348
Application No. 08/435,798
decision and elected not to do so. Accordingly, we decline2
to consider such evidence upon rehearing, especially where the
evidence, as in the case of Exhibit C, does not expressly
define the term at issue.3
Moreover, even if we were to combine the two statements
on page 2 of appellants’ request mentioned supra, and give
“anilox roller” a narrow definition consistent with both of
these statements, namely, a uniformly patterned steel or
ceramic metering roller having the entire surface covered
uniformly with fine ink holding cells, we must not lose sight
of the fact that the terminology used in appellants’ claims 3
and 23 is “anilox roller having a resilient transfer surface.”
Stated differently, according to appellants, the roller
recited in the claims clearly differs from a conventional
prior art anilox roller in that the recited roller has a
resilient transfer surface. As the Rhorer and Goettsch
37 CFR § 1.195 provides that “[a]affidavits, declarations, or exhibits2
submitted after the case has been appealed will not be admitted without a
showing of good and sufficient reasons why they were not earlier presented.”
At best, Exhibit C evidences that at least one anilox roller on the3
market includes a laser engraved ceramic outer coating over an aluminum layer.
This product description is ineffective to establish that all anilox rollers
have these features.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007