Appeal No. 2005-2632 5
Application No. 09/768,736
1 and 14 on appeal. The only difference is that Richards does not teach use of anilox
inkers to apply ink to the first and second plate cylinders (4a, 4b). Instead, Richards
merely shows representative ink rollers (8a) and (8b) for each of the plate cylinders,
noting at column 3, lines 63-67, that “one or more inker rollers 8a, 8b may be associated
with each of the first and second plate cylinders 4a, 4b, in order to apply ink to the
printing plates (not shown) mounted on each of the plate cylinders 4a, 4b.” To account
for the missing anilox inkers, the examiner turns to the printing press of John, pointing to
Figure 1 and noting the disclosure in the paragraph bridging columns 2 and 3 thereof
that use of an “anilox roller with a short-train inker” would be feasible to transfer ink to
the plate cylinder (5) of the rotary offset printing press therein.
Considering the collective teachings of Richards and John, the examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellants’ invention to utilize anilox inkers in the web-fed, rotary, off-set newspaper
printing press of Richards so as to provide a short-train inker. The examiner also points
to the disclosure in appellants’ specification at page 1, lines 9-13, wherein it is admitted
that use of an anilox inker to transfer ink to a plate cylinder of an offset lithographic
printing press is known in the art.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007