Appeal No. 1999-0267
Application 08/744,268
The references relied upon by the examiner as
evidence of obviousness are:
Mizuno et al. (Mizuno) 4,046,071 Sep. 6, 1977
Leenders 5,378,580 Jan. 3, 1995
Hauquier et al. (Hauquier) 5,462,833 Oct. 31, 1995
De Keyzer et al. (De Keyzer) 5,536,618 Jul. 16, 1996
Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 15, 16 and 18 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Mizuno.
Claims 2, 5-9 and 12-20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over Mizuno in view of Leenders,
Hauquier, and De Keyzer.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the brief and reply
brief, and below, we reverse each of the above-noted
rejections.
I. Claim interpretation
The preamble of appellants’ claim 1 recites "[a]
material for making a lithographic printing plate
comprising on a glass support a surface capable of being
differentiated in ink accepting and ink repellant areas
in accordance with an image pattern".
We first note that claim 1 is drawn to a product.
The language in italics, shown above, appears to be a
method or process of use limitation of the product being
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007