Appeal No. 2001-0241
Application No. 08/997,373
The examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 9-11 and 13-15
over Lauke in view of Nippon is another matter. Appellants do
not dispute the examiner's factual determination that Lauke
discloses the claimed lithographic printing plate with the
exception of "the use of nitric acid in treatment of the
substrate surface" (page 10 of Answer, first sentence). Nippon,
on the other hand, evidences that it was known in the art to make
photosensitive lithographic printing plates by electrolytic
surface roughening the aluminum substrate with either nitric acid
or hydrochloric acid, depending upon the particular use desired.
Nippon discloses the following at page 2 of the English
translation:
The difference in the pit structure of the
roughened surface has a significant influence on the
printing performance and print run of the plates. The
plates prepared by surface roughening processing using
a hydrochloric acid based electrolyte are appropriate
for printing newspaper, magazines, etc. with [the size
of the] print run as the emphasis. On the other hand,
the plates prepared by surface roughening processing
using a nitric acid based electrolyte are appropriate
for printing calendars, catalogs, and other commercial
art printing matter that require fine images. However,
the print run is worse than that of the former type of
plates, so that the print number is relatively small.
Consequently, the two types of plates have their
respective ranges of applications [last paragraph].
Consequently, based on the collective teachings of Lauke and
Nippon, we are satisfied that it would have been prima facie
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007