Appeal No. 2004-2180
Application No. 10/131,020
the art.’”)(quoting In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162
USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969)).
Neither the express language of appealed claim 1 nor the
accompanying description in the specification places any
quantifiable limitation on the term “typical source of power.”
Under the precedents of our reviewing court, we must construe
the term “typical source of power” to encompass any source of
power that is capable of supplying power to an imaging device.
Thus, when coupled to a sufficiently-sized “typical source of
power,” Nakazato’s printer would necessarily include a “heating
element not being capable of drawing sufficient power from said
power supply to significantly reduce power from a typical source
of power to cause flicker.”
Furthermore, appealed claim 1 is directed to an imaging
device, i.e., an apparatus. The recitation “said heating
element not being capable of drawing sufficient power from said
power supply to significantly reduce power from a typical source
of power to cause flicker” merely specifies an intended manner
of operating or using the claimed apparatus. It has long been
held that the patentability of an apparatus depends on the
actual structure claimed, not on the use, function, or result
thereof. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848, 120 USPQ 528, 531
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007