Appeal No. 2005-0236 Page 4
Application No. 08/642,866
Sjöberg discloses a single nozzle head 4, with a suction nozzle 26 and a jet
nozzle 24 located therein, movable to and fro via a linear actuator 21 parallel to the
shaft of a pattern roll 6 to clean the pattern roll.
From our viewpoint, each of the references, Uribe, Anderson and Sjöberg,
applied by the examiner in this rejection discloses a different approach to cleaning the
exterior surface of a printing cylinder or roller. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of appellants’ invention would have viewed the spray bars of Anderson and the movable
suction/jet nozzle head of Sjöberg as alternatives to the brush roller arrangement of
Uribe and would not have been led by the teachings of these references to modify
Uribe’s cleaning device as proposed by the examiner to arrive at appellants’ claimed
invention. From our perspective, the only suggestion for putting the selected pieces
from the references together in the manner proposed by the examiner is found in the
luxury of hindsight accorded one who first viewed the appellants' disclosure. This, of
course, is not a proper basis for a rejection. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992). It follows that we must reverse the rejection of
independent claims 1, 14 and 17 and claims 8, 9, 11, 15 and 18-21 depending
therefrom.
The examiner’s additional application of Giori and Arnolds does nothing to cure
the above-noted deficiency of the combination of Uribe, Anderson and Sjöberg. We
therefore must also reverse the rejections of claims 3, 5-7 and 16 as being unpatentable
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007