Appeal No. 2005-1229 Page 5
Application No. 09/887,334
dryer (at 17 in Figure 6), that dryer fails to perform the claimed function (i.e., "for heating
said original plate during irradiating said activation light so that the temperature of the
surface of said original plate becomes 40 through 200°C one of as per image and on
the entire surface thereof, so that a hydrophobic area and a hydrophilic area are formed
on said original plate").
The examiner argues that the recitation of heating the plate "during'' irradiating
does not distinguish the claimed "means for heating'' from the dryer disclosed by Suda
since both heat the surface of the plate. The examiner determined that the dryer
disclosed by Suda is structurally capable of heating the plate during irradiating to the
extent that the claimed means for heating is structurally capable of heating the plate
during irradiating. In short, it is the examiner's position that the appellants have
misconstrued the function of the means for heating so that the means for heating does
not distinguish from the dryer disclosed by Suda.
In order to meet a "means-plus-function" limitation, the prior art must (1) perform
the identical function recited in the means limitation and (2) perform that function using
the structure disclosed in the specification or an equivalent structure. Cf. Carroll Touch
Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Sys. Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1578, 27 USPQ2d 1836, 1840 (Fed.
Cir. 1994); Valmont Indus. Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 1042, 25 USPQ2d
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007