Appeal No. 2005-2632 8
Application No. 09/768,736
Concerning dependent claims 2, 3 and 17 through 20, appellants contend (brief,
page 7) that John does not disclose the limitation that the ink application cylinder is
driven directly by a motor. While that may be true of John, the examiner correctly points
out that this aspect of the invention is clearly set forth in Richards, wherein it is indicated
that the motors (10a) and (10b) seen in Figure 1 may directly drive the ink application
cylinders (8a) and (8b). Note particularly, column 4, lines 9-11 and column 4, lines 18-
21. As for the assertion in the reply brief that John does not teach the requirement of
claims 3 and 18 that the ink form roll and the first plate cylinder have the same
diameter, we agree with the examiner that the teaching in John at column 2, lines 47-61
that the ink form roll should have a diameter of “about 99% of the diameter of the plate
cylinder” (emphasis added), would have encompassed and/or been suggestive to one
of ordinary skill in the art of an arrangement where the ink form roll and the first plate
cylinder have the same diameter. Thus, we will also sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 2, 3 and 17 through 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
As for dependent claims 4 through 6, 8 and 16, appellants focus only on the
arguments made above concerning the combination of Richards and John as applied to
independent claims 1 and 14. Thus, finding no argument for the separate patentability of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007