Appeal No. 2000-2258
Application No. 08/888,759
Zerillo exist outside of Zerillo’s specific disclosed combination
of a hot-melt ink applied to a hydrophilic surface.
Further, in contrast to the lack of evidence supplied by the
Examiner to support the conclusion of obviousness, we find clear
evidence at Table I at page 41 in Appellants’ specification of the
improved results achieved with the presently claimed hot melt ink
and hydrophobic surface combination as opposed to the hot melt ink
and hydrophilic combination disclosed in the prior art. After
considering the totality of evidence presented on the record, it is
our opinion that any suggestion to modify the printing plate
systems of Kato ‘250 or Kato ‘705 and Kanda by using the solid hot
melt ink composition disclosed by Zerillo could only come from
Appellants’ own disclosure, and not from any disclosure in the
prior art references themselves.
Lastly, we have reviewed the Nakayama reference which has been
applied by the Examiner to address the support surface smoothness
features of the appealed claim 4. We find nothing, however, in the
disclosure of Nakayama which would overcome the innate deficiencies
of Kato ‘250, Kato ‘705, Kanda, and Zerillo discussed supra.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007