Appeal No. 2006-3118
Application No. 10/144,884
time [see Rieker, abstract], the reference nonetheless teaches providing a 2:1
circumference ratio for the plate cylinder to each blanket cylinder. In short,
Rieker’s arrangement does not foreclose applying the fundamental teaching of
providing a 2:1 plate-to-blanket cylinder circumference ratio in Richards.
For the above reasons, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 14. Since appellant has not separately argued the
patentability of dependent claims 2, 15-17, and 19, these claims fall with the
independent claims. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525,
1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(vii).
We next consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 3-6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Richards in view of Rieker and further in
view of Simeth. The examiner finds that Richards and Rieker disclose all
claimed limitations except for removable plates. The examiner cites Simeth as
disclosing 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 provide removable plates for
the plate cylinders of Richards/Rieker apparatus to quickly replace a printing
plate as desired thus enabling printing of different images on a web [answer,
page 4]. Appellant argues that there is no motivation to combine Simeth (a
sheet-fed device) with Richards (a web printing press) [brief, page 5]. The
examiner responds that the skilled artisan would recognize the advantages of
removable plates would apply to all plate cylinders, regardless of whether they
are used in sheet-fed or web-fed devices [answer, page 7].
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013