Appeal No. 2004-0622 Page 2
Application No. 09/875,602
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a doctor blade device which can remove
excess water from the soft surface of a printing machine roller without damaging the
roller surface and without removing an ink layer possibly adhering to it (specification,
page 4). A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the
appellants’ brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Laverick 4,632,030 Dec. 30, 1986
Bock (British patent specification) 1,381,941 Jan. 29, 1975
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
appellants regard as their invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Bock.
Claims 7-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Laverick in view of Bock.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 15) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007