Appeal No. 2005-2632 4
Application No. 09/768,736
The references of record relied upon by the examiner to reject the claims remaining
on appeal are:
John et al. (John) 5,165,341 Nov. 24, 1992
Richards 6,050,185 Apr. 18, 2000
Claims 1 through 6, 8, 14 and 16 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Richards in view of John.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by appellants and the
examiner regarding the above-noted rejection, we refer to the answer (mailed April 21,
2005) for a complete exposition of the examiner’s position, and to appellants’ corrected
brief (filed June 7, 2004) and reply brief (filed June 20, 2005) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Having carefully reviewed the obviousness issues raised in this appeal in light of the
record before us, we have made the determination that the examiner’s rejection will be
sustained. Our reasoning follows.
As noted in the examiner’s answer (pages 3-6), Richards discloses an offset printing
press and method that is essentially the same as those set forth in independent claims
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007