Appeal No. 2006-0511 Page 3
Application No. 10/258,312
The examiner has relied on the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Peterson et al. (Peterson) 0 469 735 B1 Feb. 05, 1992
(published European Patent Application)
Wang et al. (Wang) 0 665 469 A2 Aug. 02, 1995
(published European Patent Application)
Claims 1-4, 6-28, 31-32, 34, 36-38 and 40 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Wang (Answer, page 3). Claims
5, 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wang in view of Peterson (Answer, page 5). Based
on the totality of the record, we affirm both rejections on appeal
essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer, as well as those
reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection over Wang
The examiner finds that Wang discloses a process for producing
a flexographic printing plate by providing a photosensitive
element, imagewise exposing the element to actinic radiation to
polymerize areas exposed to the radiation, and thermally treating
the exposed element to remove unpolymerized material from the
element to yield a relief surface (Answer, page 4). The examiner
also finds that the photosensitive element includes at least one
photosensitive elastomeric composition comprising a thermoplastic
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007