Appeal No. 2000-0808
Application No. 08/906,815
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal,
Appellants’ arguments in response assert that the Examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In
particular, Appellants attack (Brief, page 6), the Examiner’s
reliance on the solid hot-melt ink teachings of Zerillo as
providing a teaching to the skilled artisan to utilize a solid ink
in the printing plate system of Kato as modified by Kanda.
After careful review of the Zerillo reference in light of the
arguments of record, we are in agreement with Appellants’ position
as stated in the Briefs. As asserted by Appellants, and there is
no disagreement by the Examiner, while Zerillo discloses various
advantages of using a solid hot-melt ink in a printing plate
preparation process, the only disclosed application of such hot-
melt ink by Zerillo is onto a hydrophilic, i.e., water-receptive,
image receiving layer. The use of a hydrophilic image receiving
layer as disclosed by Zerillo is in direct contrast to the
hydrophobic, i.e., water-resistive, image receiving layers used by
Kato and Kanda, as well as that specifically set forth in appealed
claim 1.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007