Appeal No. 1999-0267
Application 08/744,268
claimed, and we note that such a limitation has no
significance in a product claim. Cf. In re Wiggins, 397
F.2d 356, 359 n.4, 158 USPQ 199, 201-202 n.4 (CCPA 1968).
In the case of In re Wiggins, the court noted that a
composition would not appear to be different in any
material manner from the composition of appellants’
claims no matter to what ultimate use it would be put.
Id. Here, we find that appellants’ claim 1 is a product
claim directed to a material comprising, on a glass
support, a surface capable of being differentiated in ink
accepting and ink repellant areas in accordance with an
image pattern, wherein the glass support has a particular
thickness, a particular failure stress value, and a
particular Youngs’ modulus value.
In light of In re Wiggins, we see no patentable
significance in the proposed use to which appellants'
claimed material will be put, e.g., "for making a
lithographic printing plate". The intended use does not
make the material new and patentable. In re Thuau, 135
F.2d 344,347, 57 USPQ 324, 325-26 (CCPA 1943).
Hence, we interpret claim 1 as a product claim
directed to a material comprising, on a glass support, a
surface capable of being differentiated in ink accepting
and ink repellant areas in accordance with an image
pattern, wherein the glass support has the particularly
claimed thickness, failure stress value, and Youngs’
modulus value. In our analysis of the art rejections,
set forth below, we apply this interpretation of claim 1.
II. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mizuno
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007