Appeal No. 2005-2632 6
Application No. 09/768,736
The crux of appellants’ arguments in the brief and reply brief appears to be that one
of ordinary skill in the art would not use the teaching in John of a short-train anilox inker
without also taking into account the teaching therein of gearing the blanket cylinder (1),
the plate cylinder (5), and the ink form roll (12) together as seen in Figure 2 of that
patent. Appellants then contend that incorporating the inker and gearing arrangement of
John into the newspaper printing press of Richards would result in a press drive
arrangement that would preclude appellants’ claim 1 limitation of selectively contacting
the plate cylinder with the blanket cylinder.
Like the examiner, it is our view that one of ordinary skill in the art looking at the
disclosures of Richards and John would have immediately understood the importance in
Richards of maintaining the particular drive arrangement therein so as to retain the
critical capability of selectively “throwing off” one of the plate cylinders while the other
plate cylinder and blanket cylinders continue to run, thereby allowing the printing plates
of the disengaged plate cylinder to be changed while the printing press is in operation,
and also allowing the printing press to be operated as an “imprinter printing unit.” See,
e.g., the paragraph bridging columns 2 and 3 of Richards and column 5, lines 21-57.
Moreover, given the known use of short-train anilox inkers in offset lithographic printing
presses and the broad disclosure in Richards of only representative inker rolls (8a, 8b),
along with the indication at column 3, lines 63-67, that “one or more inker rollers 8a, 8b
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007