Appeal No. 2005-0812
Application No. 09/792,609
appellants’ specification (see pages 2 and 3) to the image
setting device location defined in claim 1.4
In this light, it is apparent that the only suggestion for
combining Fadner and Guaraldi in the manner advanced by the
examiner stems from hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived
from the appellants’ disclosure. As the examiner’s application
of Schneider, Marquez, Williams and/or Fuhrmann does not cure
this shortcoming, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2
as being unpatentable over Fadner in view of Schneider and
Guaraldi, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent
claim 3 as being unpatentable over Fadner in view of Schneider,
Guaraldi and Marquez, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of dependent claim 4 as being unpatentable over Fadner in view of
Schneider, Guaraldi and Williams, or the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 5 and 6 as being
4
4 Although Figure 9 of the Guaraldi reference depicts an
image setting unit mounted with respect to printing and blanket
cylinders, the appellants and the examiner agree that this unit
is not arranged wholly within an obtuse angle as recited in claim
1, and the examiner makes it clear that Guaraldi is not relied on
in the rejection to teach a particular location for an image
setting device (see page 6 in the main brief and page 8 in the
answer).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007