Ex Parte Gottling et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 18, 2005

08642866 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 18, 2005)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JOSEF GOTTLING, GODBER PETERSEN and RAINER STAMME
____________
Appeal No. 2005-0236
Application No. 08/642,866
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before FRANKFORT, NASE and BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 3-9,
11 and 14-21, which are all of the claims pending in this application. Claims 2, 10, 12
and 13 have been canceled. Claim 11 was amended subsequent to the final rejection.
We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a device for cleaning printing cylinders. A
copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
Appeal No. 2005-0236
Application No. 08/642,866
Page 2
1 The rejection under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been withdrawn (answer,
page 5).
2 The inclusion of canceled claims 12 and 13 in this rejection on page 3 of the answer appears to
have been an inadvertent error on the part of the examiner.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Anderson et al. (Anderson) 3,486,448 Dec. 30, 1969
Giori 4,054,685 Oct. 18, 1977
Arnolds 4,254,709 Mar. 10, 1981
Uribe et al. (Uribe) 5,109,770 May 5, 1992
Sjöberg WO 94/12349 Jun. 9, 1994
The following rejections are before us for review.1
Claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15 and 17-212 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Uribe in view of Anderson and Sjöberg.
Claims 3, 5-7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Uribe in view of Anderson and Sjöberg and further in view of Giori.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Uribe
in view of Anderson and Sjöberg and further in view of Arnolds.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed May 14, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the corrected brief (filed March 30, 2004) and reply brief (filed July 16,
2003) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
Appeal No. 2005-0236
Application No. 08/642,866
Page 3
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn our attention first to the rejection of claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15 and 17-21
as being unpatentable over Uribe in view of Anderson and Sjöberg. Uribe, the primary
reference relied upon by the examiner in rejecting appellants’ claims, is the only one of
the three applied references which comprises a housing which is open toward the outer
surface of the cylinder, as called for in each of appellants’ independent claims 1, 14 and
17. Uribe, however, utilizes a brush roller 28, fed with cleaning fluid, which could
include water, via a cleaning fluid distribution tube 41, rather than a plurality of nozzles
configured, arranged or operative to direct jets of water against or onto an outer surface
of the cylinder as called for in claims 1, 14 and 17.
Anderson discloses a blanket cylinder washer comprising a plurality of nozzles
39, affixed to spray bars 36, which emit a flammable solvent toward the cylinder to wash
off lint and break down the affinity of the ink to cling to the cylinders. See Figures 2-4.
Anderson (column 1, lines 54-59) teaches that bristle brushes employed in the prior art
to clean the exterior surfaces of the blanket cylinder have not been found entirely
satisfactory.
Appeal No. 2005-0236
Application No. 08/642,866
Page 4
Sjöberg discloses a single nozzle head 4, with a suction nozzle 26 and a jet
nozzle 24 located therein, movable to and fro via a linear actuator 21 parallel to the
shaft of a pattern roll 6 to clean the pattern roll.
From our viewpoint, each of the references, Uribe, Anderson and Sjöberg,
applied by the examiner in this rejection discloses a different approach to cleaning the
exterior surface of a printing cylinder or roller. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of appellants’ invention would have viewed the spray bars of Anderson and the movable
suction/jet nozzle head of Sjöberg as alternatives to the brush roller arrangement of
Uribe and would not have been led by the teachings of these references to modify
Uribe’s cleaning device as proposed by the examiner to arrive at appellants’ claimed
invention. From our perspective, the only suggestion for putting the selected pieces
from the references together in the manner proposed by the examiner is found in the
luxury of hindsight accorded one who first viewed the appellants' disclosure. This, of
course, is not a proper basis for a rejection. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992). It follows that we must reverse the rejection of
independent claims 1, 14 and 17 and claims 8, 9, 11, 15 and 18-21 depending
therefrom.
The examiner’s additional application of Giori and Arnolds does nothing to cure
the above-noted deficiency of the combination of Uribe, Anderson and Sjöberg. We
therefore must also reverse the rejections of claims 3, 5-7 and 16 as being unpatentable
Appeal No. 2005-0236
Application No. 08/642,866
Page 5
over Uribe in view of Anderson, Sjöberg and Giori and claim 4 as being unpatentable
over Uribe in view of Anderson, Sjöberg and Arnolds.
Appeal No. 2005-0236
Application No. 08/642,866
Page 6
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 3-9, 11 and 14-21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JEFFREY V. NASE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JDB/ki
Appeal No. 2005-0236
Application No. 08/642,866
Page 7
F. Brice Faller, Esq.
Cohen Pontani Lieberman and Pavane
551 Fifth Avenue
Suite 1210
New York, NY 10176