Appeal No. 2000-2258
Application No. 08/888,759
(1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an essential part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 5, 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 ‘250 or Kato ‘705 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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007