Appeal No. 2005-1229 Page 6
Application No. 09/887,334
1451, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1580, 12 USPQ2d
1382, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The claimed function of the "means for heating" is "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." Clearly, Suda's dryer does not perform the identical function recited in the
means limitation. Moreover, there is no disclosure in Suda that his printing machine is
capable of heating the original plate during irradiating the activation light so that the
temperature of the surface of the 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 the original plate. In that regard, Suda's printing
machine could be designed to prevent the dryer from operating other than as described
by Suda. Thus, we find the examiner's determination that the dryer disclosed by Suda
is structurally capable of heating the plate during irradiating to be in error.
For the reasons set forth above, claim 13 is not anticipated by Suda.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 13, and claims 16 and 20
dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Suda is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007