Ex Parte Badesha et al - Page 6

                   Appeal 2006-1593                                                                                                
                   Application 09/737,413                                                                                          
                   In this regard, Appellants refer to a portion of pages 2 and 3 of their                                         
                   Specification in arguing that a transfix element “has different electrical,                                     
                   mechanical, and chemical requirements for the layers thereof” than those of                                     
                   a fuser (Br. 7-8, Reply Brs. 3).  However, our review of the referred to pages                                  
                   of the Specification reveals no implicitly required product distinction for the                                 
                   claimed transfix member over the applied fuser of Badesha based on the                                          
                   general discussion about electrostatic printing machine transfer and transfix                                   
                   members set forth therein.  Concerning the outer layer requirements of                                          
                   representative claim 20, we note that Badesha ‘643 discloses that the fuser                                     
                   members referred to therein employ an outer layer with good thermal                                             
                   properties that appears to be substantially identical to the outer layer                                        
                   required by the representative claim.  Compare the mica-type layered silicate                                   
                   described for use in the silicone elastomer-containing outer layer of the fuser                                 
                   of Badesha ‘643 with the requirements of representative claim 20.  See, e.g.,                                   
                   col. 6, l. 43 through col. 2, l. 52 of Badesha ‘643.                                                            
                          As our reviewing court stated in In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478,                                   
                   44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997):                                                                          
                                  A patent applicant is free to recite features of an                                              
                          apparatus either structurally or functionally.  See In re                                                
                          Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA                                                    
                          1971)(“[T]here is nothing intrinsically wrong with [defining                                             
                          something by what it does rather than what it is] in drafting                                            
                          patent claims.”).  Yet, choosing to define an element                                                    
                          functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk.  As our                                     
                          predecessor court stated in Swinehart, 439 F.2d at 213, 169                                              
                          USPQ at 228:                                                                                             
                                  where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a                                             
                                 functional limitation asserted to be critical for                                                 
                                 establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter                                                
                                 may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior                                          
                                 art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant                                          

                                                                6                                                                  


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007