Appeal No. 1999-0267
Application 08/744,268
such a selection. Hence, we find that the examiner has
not met his burden required for a prima facie case.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1,
3, 4, 10, 11, 15, 16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Mizuno.
III. The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Mizuno in view of Leenders, Hauquier and De
Keyzer
Appellants simply state that since these rejected
claims are dependent upon claims which are patentable for
the reasons given with regard to the previously mentioned
art rejection, these claims are also patentable. (Brief,
page 9). The examiner argues that the printing plate
taught in Mizuno includes the use in a lithographic
press. (Answer, pages 5-7).
As we noted above, our focus is on the glass support
and surface, and the recited properties set forth in
appellants' claim 1. In this context, we find that the
examiner has not provided a technical explanation of why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
have chosen a glass support and surface having the
combination of properties as claimed by appellants.
On page 6 of the answer, the examiner discusses that
Leenders recognizes that any support can be used in a
lithographic printing plate as long as the support is
sufficiently oleophilic. Again, we refer to our
aforementioned interpretation of claim 1, and in this
context, we find that Leenders does not provide a
teaching which would have motivated the skilled artisan
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007