Appeal No. 1999-2505 Page 4
Application No. 08/886,635
analogous to those discussed in our Decision of January 30, 2001 rendered in Serial Number
08/432,450, the parent application. A further explanation follows.
OPINION
Claim 11 is directed to a process of providing a particular photosensitive element,
imagewise ablating that element to form a mask, exposing the masked element to radiation, and
treating the irradiated element with developer. Fan generally teaches these steps. However, as
we found in the parent appeal (Decision at 5-9), Fan does not teach the details of the
photosensitive element which is used in the process.
In particular, claim 11 requires that the photosensitive element contain an infrared
ablation layer which is in direct contact with at least one layer of photopolymerizable material
of (b). In contrast, Fan describes positioning a barrier layer between the photopolymerizable
layer and infrared-sensitive material (Fan at col. 2, ll. 22-26; col. 4, ll. 11-13; claim 1(c)).
With regard to this difference, the Examiner finds that Fan teaches in column 4, lines
22-23 that a barrier layer can be dispensed with if incompatibility exists between monomer and
IR layer and that, although Fan also indicates that the barrier layer shields the
photopolymerizable layer from oxygen during exposure, Fan discloses that the effect of oxygen
can be overcome by longer exposure or higher intensity (Answer at 4).
The Examiner’s findings are erroneous. The disclosure at column 4, lines 22-23 does
not, contrary to the finding of the Examiner, state that the barrier layer can be eliminated. Fan
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007