Appeal No. 2006-3118
Application No. 10/144,884
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the applicant to overcome
the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then
determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative
persuasiveness of the arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223
USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made by appellant
have been considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could have
made but chose not to make in the briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004)].
Regarding independent claims 1 and 14, the examiner's rejection
essentially finds that Richards teaches every claimed feature except for the
circumference of the plate cylinders to have a 2:1 relationship with the blanket
cylinders. The examiner cites Rieker as teaching such a feature and finds that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to modify the plate cylinders of Richards in the manner suggested by
Rieker to improve printing efficiency [answer, page 3].
Appellant argues that the prior art does not disclose “a second plate
cylinder associated with another color having a second plate cylinder
circumference; and a second blanket cylinder having a second blanket cylinder
circumference, the second plate cylinder circumference being in a N:1
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013