Appeal No. 1999-1348
Application No. 08/435,798
rollers have resilient transfer surfaces, rather than hard
steel or ceramic surfaces on which the cell pattern is fixed,
they appear to respond structurally to the claim limitations.
The only argument offered in appellants’ request as to
why the Rhorer and Goettsch rollers are not resilient anilox
rollers is that they are “rubber printing rollers” (request,
page 1). From our perspective, the distinction argued by
appellants is directed to the intended use of the roller, not
to the actual structure of the roller, and thus cannot be
relied upon for patentability. It is well settled that the
recitation of an intended use for an old product does not make
a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 128
F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
As a final observation with regard to whether or not the
Rhorer and Goettsch rollers are an “anilox roller having
resilient transfer surfaces” as claimed by appellants, we note
that, in response to the examiner’s enablement rejection,
appellants (brief, page 7) pointed to the examiner’s citation
of the Rhorer and Goettsch references as prior art disclosing
such a roller to support the conclusion that one of ordinary
skill in the art would be aware of such a roller (i.e., an
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007