Case Name: In re Peter Zimmer
Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1968-01-11
Citations: 55 C.C.P.A. 817
Docket Number: No. 7876
Parties: In re Peter Zimmer
Judges: Before Worley, Chief Judge, and Judges Rich, Smith, Almond, Kirkpatrick
Reporter: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Reports
Volume: 55
Pages: 817–821

Head Matter:
387 F. 2d 990; 156 USPQ 252
In re Peter Zimmer
(No. 7876)
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
January 11, 1968
Wmderoth, Lind & Ponaclc, John M. Lind for appellant.
Joseph Schimmel (J?red W. Sherling, of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents.
[Oral argument December 7,1967 by Mr. Lind and Mr. Sherling]
Before Worley, Chief Judge, and Judges Rich, Smith, Almond, Kirkpatrick
Senior District Judge, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
WoRLEY, Chief Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 8 as "unpatentable over" Zimmer under 35 USC 102 and "unpatentable over" Courtney under 35 USC 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 applying 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 tbe 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, 48 CCPA 875, 288 F. 2d 708, 129 USPQ 227.
The decision is affirmed.
Appearing in Serial No, 298,189, filed July 29,1963.
British patent No. 743,850, January 25,1956.
Australian patent No. 135,057, November 3,1949.