Appeal No. 1996-0903
Application No. 07/692,211
Because the independent claims on appeal recite that the
method “comprises” the depositing step, those claims do not
exclude the application of a solvent or other substances, for
that matter.
We also are unpersuaded by appellants’ argument that
Nakamura lacks a disclosure of engraving the medium or, more
particularly, the plastic composition on the substrate to
provide ink-retaining cells (see, for example, page 19 of the
main brief and page 6 of the reply brief). The appealed
independent claims do not expressly recite the step of
engraving the cured plastic composition for providing ink-
retaining cells or for any other purpose, for that matter.
The independent claims do not even provide for a printing step
utilizing ink in the cells.
Instead, the independent claims merely recite that after
curing, the plastic composition is “engravable” to produce the
ink-retaining cells. When this claim language is given its
broadest reasonable interpretation as required in In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989),
it is broad enough to read on a plastic composition that is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007