Appeal No. 1999-1348
Application No. 08/435,798
anilox roller having a resilient transfer surface). This
statement implies a concession by appellants that the Rhorer
and Goettsch rollers are anilox rollers having a resilient
transfer surface.
Appellants also add a new argument that, in essence,
there is no suggestion or teaching or reason to modify Bird as
proposed by the examiner because, if a skilled artisan were to
use a roller of the type disclosed by Rhorer or Goettsch in
Bird, such an artisan would replace the plate cylinder 19b and
relief plate 20b, not the applicator roller 33, with such a
roller (request, page 3). This argument was not presented by
appellants in either their brief or reply brief. In fact,
with regard to the examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims
3 and 23, and the substitution of the roller of either Rhorer
or Goettsch for the applicator roller 33 of Bird in
particular, appellants’ sole argument was a glib statement
that the examiner’s position was inconsistent with the
rejection of claims 3 and 23 under the first paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112 (brief, page 10). Appellants’ attempt to
belatedly present such a new argument is unavailing, since a
new argument advanced in a request for rehearing, but not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007