APPLICATION OF ZIMMER

• Decision Date: 11 January 1968
• Docket Number: Patent Appeal No. 7876.
• Citation: 156 USPQ 252,387 F.2d 990
• Parties: Application of Peter ZIMMER.
• Court: U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)

156 USPQ 252, 387 F.2d 990 (1968)

Application of Peter ZIMMER.

Patent Appeal No. 7876.

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

January 11, 1968.

Wenderoth, Lind & Ponack, John E. Lind, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D.C., (Fred W. Sherling, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for the Commissioner of Patents.

Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, SMITH, ALMOND, Judges, and WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK.^*

WORLEY, Chief Judge.

This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 7 and 8¹ as "unpatentable over" Zimmer² under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and "unpatentable over" Courtney³ under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

The invention relates to a process and apparatus for screen printing thick textile material, such as carpeting. The process involves applying pressure through a stencil screen placed over the material to be printed shortly before a doctor roller applies printing dye through the image areas of the screen. According to appellant, the purpose of the pressure application is to deaerate the textile material, thereby improving the penetration of the dye. Appellant's apparatus employs a second roller — termed a "pressure roller" and placed just in front of the doctor roller — to apply the pressure, as reflected in claim 8:

8. Device for the printing of textiles of great thickness such as carpets comprising a screen stencil to be placed on the material to be treated, a color doctor movable above said screen stencil for the application of a dye to said material and a pressure roller to deaerate the material to be treated moving jointly with and parallel to said doctor thus rolling before said doctor and said dye on said screen stencil, whereby the treated material is deaerated along its entire breadth prior to applying the dye.

The examiner noted that both Courtney and Zimmer disclose apparatus for screen printing of textiles which employs two rollers for appying ink through the stencil. He thought it apparent that the front or leading roller of the double roller arrangement of either reference "would inherently act as a pressure roller to deaerate a portion of the material to be treated" while the back or trailing roller acts as a doctor roller to apply the dye. The examiner also observed that Zimmer, like appellant, initially places the dye between the two rollers and that Courtney, in disclosing spraying dye "on the leading side and/or trailing side" of the rollers, rendered initial placement of the dye between the rollers obvious.

The board agreed, adding:

Obviously, in both patents it is contemplated that the rollers must be subjected to considerable pressure which would inherently compress the fabric material being printed.

Appellant has presented no argument which convinces us of error in the reasoning of the examiner and board. While it is true, as appellant contends, that neither reference expressly discloses that the textile material is "deaerated" prior to the application of the dye by the doctor roller, Courtney does clearly disclose that his rollers are adjustable to roll over the stencil screen "with a downward pressure according to the depth of penetration of the dye required." We have considered appellant's arguments, unsupported by evidence, as to the alleged operation of the apparatus disclosed by those references in practice. In our view, however, the examiner and board have read nothing into the disclosure and operation of the references which one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand to be implicitly there. The fact that both references are foreign patents is immaterial in that regard. In re Moreton, 288 F.2d 708, 48 CCPA 875.

The decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.

SMITH, Judge, (concurring).

While I would affirm the decision of the board, my difficulty with the majority opinion is that I am unable to determine from it which of the stated rejections are affirmed,

On the present record, three distinct rejections are before the court. Error was properly assigned as to each in appellant's assignment of reasons for appeal, although appellant's brief is primarily directed to the initial two rejections. Under these circumstances it is my belief that the majority should have explicitly set forth the ground or grounds of rejection on which it relies.

A review of these rejections demonstrates the desirability of specifying the precise basis of the majority opinion for several reasons: (1) such a statement assures a careful analysis of the claims and prior art according to the applicable statutory...