Appeal No. 2005-0236 Page 3
Application No. 08/642,866
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn our attention first to the rejection of claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15 and 17-21
as being unpatentable over Uribe in view of Anderson and Sjöberg. Uribe, the primary
reference relied upon by the examiner in rejecting appellants’ claims, is the only one of
the three applied references which comprises a housing which is open toward the outer
surface of the cylinder, as called for in each of appellants’ independent claims 1, 14 and
17. Uribe, however, utilizes a brush roller 28, fed with cleaning fluid, which could
include water, via a cleaning fluid distribution tube 41, rather than a plurality of nozzles
configured, arranged or operative to direct jets of water against or onto an outer surface
of the cylinder as called for in claims 1, 14 and 17.
Anderson discloses a blanket cylinder washer comprising a plurality of nozzles
39, affixed to spray bars 36, which emit a flammable solvent toward the cylinder to wash
off lint and break down the affinity of the ink to cling to the cylinders. See Figures 2-4.
Anderson (column 1, lines 54-59) teaches that bristle brushes employed in the prior art
to clean the exterior surfaces of the blanket cylinder have not been found entirely
satisfactory.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007