Application of Oskar Sus and Werner Schaefer

306 F.2d 494, 49 C.C.P.A. 1301
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedJuly 25, 1962
DocketPatent Appeal 6778
StatusPublished
Cited by32 cases

This text of 306 F.2d 494 (Application of Oskar Sus and Werner Schaefer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Customs and Patent Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Application of Oskar Sus and Werner Schaefer, 306 F.2d 494, 49 C.C.P.A. 1301 (ccpa 1962).

Opinion

SMITH, Judge.

The comparatively simple legal issue which emerges from the rather complex technical aspects of the application involved in this appeal is whether the rejected claims are broader than the written description of the invention and thus do not meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. 1 The examiner and the board have held that they do not. Ap- ■ pellants contend on this appeal that they do. For reasons to be more fully set forth in this opinion, we agree with the board.

The claims on appeal are claims 24, 26, 30, 36, 38, 42, 48, 50, 54, 62 and 66 of appellants’ application Serial No. 430,-978, filed May 19, 1954, entitled “Light Sensitive Material and Process.” Four claims, 33, 45, 57 and 69 have been allowed by the examiner. The remaining claims of the application have been withdrawn from consideration as not reading on the elected species.

*495 The written description of the invention found in the specification shows that it relates to a class of light-sensitive organic compounds, known as aryl azides or aromatic azido compounds, and to the employment of these compounds as coatings on planographic printing plates particularly for use in offset flat printing by a photo-mechanical process.

Appellants acknowledge that use of the broad class of such light-sensitive materials was known previously, but assert in the specification that:

“Such a process is very troublesome, however, and has been superseded by methods in which the greasy printing ink adheres to some parts of the originally light-sensitive substance itself, either by the light-sensitive substance itself forming the printing image, or by the image being formed of the light-decomposition products of the light-sensitive substance resulting from the exposure. Those aryl azides previously suggested have proved to be incapable of being suitable in such a process.” [Emphasis added.]

The specification states an object of the invention is “the obtention of certain new groups of aryl azides.” [Emphasis added.]

The specification discloses light-sensitive aromatic azido compounds which are substituted in the nucleus containing the azido group either by (1) a sulfo group amidated with an aromatic amine or (2) by a primary amino group substituted with the sulphonyl residue of an aromatic sulpho acid.

A pre-sensitized printing plate is produced by first coating a metal base, preferably aluminum foil, with a layer of a disclosed light-sensitive ary] azide. The coating is formed by applying to the base a solution of the azide in an organic solvent and subsequently evaporating the solvent. The resulting pre-sensitized plate is then exposed to a light source under a transparent master and developed as disclosed in appellants’ brief as follows:

“ * * * the image is developed by treatment of the light exposed layer with a dilute alkaline solution. This treatment removes from the aluminum, or other foil, the light decomposition products of the aromatic azido compound in those areas struck by light. The relief image is then generally treated with a dilute phosphoric acid solution, after which the developed printing plate may be clamped into an offset printing machine and used for the production of copies.”

The claims on appeal may be grouped in four groups according to subject matter as follows:

1. Claims 24, 26 and 30 which define the light-sensitive compounds per se;

2. Claims 36, 38 and 42, which are drawn to a process for the production of a pre-sensitized printing plate in which the single step . claimed is coating a base material with a layer of the claimed light-sensitive compounds;

3. Claims 48, 50, and 54, which are drawn to a process for the production of a printing plate and define, in addition to the coating step of claims 36, 38 and 42, the additional steps of exposing the coated base to light under a master and of treating the exposed base with a weakly alkaline solution;

4. Claims 60, 62 and 66, which are drawn to a pre-sensitized printing plate comprising a base coated with the compounds of claims 24, 26 and 30, respectively.

In addition to rejecting certain claims on the art, the board affirmed the rejection of all the appealed claims as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the alleged invention, stating:

“The claims have been further rejected as being unduly broad in the terms ‘substituted aryl’ and ‘substituted arylene’. The examiner points out that any substituent is included in this recitation and that ap *496 pellants’ contentions for patentability are thus based merely upon the fact that the aryl or arylene nucleus is substituted, without regard to the nature of the substituent.”

While we do not find it necessary to review the rejection of the claims as un-patentable over the prior art in the view we here take, it is necessary to a better understanding of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 which we are here affirming, to know the historical background of the invention as revealed by the cited references.

The references relied on are:

Schmidt et al. disclose that light-sensitive layers may be produced on a base, for instance paper or film, by applying a weakly alkaline solution of an aryl azide to the base, followed by exposure of the coated base to light through a master such as a negative, whereupon dyestuffs (colored light-decomposition products) are formed on those portions exposed to the light while the unexposed portions remain unaltered. A positive picture is obtained, which is washed to be rendered permanent. The structure of the aryl azide light-sensitive compounds is disclosed broadly to consist of an aromatic azido substituted ring which may be further substituted in the other positions on the ring with such groups as hydroxyl, carboxyl, azido, halogen, aryl, aralkyl, oxalkyl, or alkyl as well as an amino group, substituted or not, or a sulfo group.

Neugebauer et al. disclose the preparation of photo-lithographic printing plates for use in the flat printing process comprising coating a zinc or aluminum base with a layer of a light-sensitive aryl azide, exposing the coated base to a light source under a master and subsequently removing either the exposed or unexposed portions of the coating. The disclosure refers to the preparation of images by the action of light on light-sensitive aromatic azido compounds, including the aromatic di-azido compounds which are said to be particularly useful. Neugebauer et al. disclose a number of examples employing diazidostilbene disulfonic compounds as the light-sensitive substances.

The French patent discloses that the aromatic azides are known to be light-sensitive, and discloses a preferred group of these compounds which may be applied as a layer on a support, for example, paper, glass or metal, and thereafter exposed to light under masks or negatives and then, after known treatment, employed for reproduction or photographic purposes.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.
598 F.3d 1336 (Federal Circuit, 2010)
Maytag Corp. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
448 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (N.D. Iowa, 2006)
Martin Gardner Reiffin v. Microsoft Corporation
214 F.3d 1342 (Federal Circuit, 2000)
Struthers Patent Corp. v. Nestle Co., Inc.
558 F. Supp. 747 (D. New Jersey, 1981)
In re Anderson
471 F.2d 1237 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1973)
Application of Charles R. Barr
444 F.2d 588 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1971)
Application of Janis Robins
429 F.2d 452 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1970)
Application of Edgar Siegel and Klaus Sasse
395 F.2d 812 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1968)
Application of Marwan R. Kamal and Edgar R. Rogier
398 F.2d 867 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1968)
Application of Charles W. Garvin
392 F.2d 286 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1968)
Application of Julian Robert Anthony Beale
378 F.2d 970 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1967)
Application of Frantz Lund and Wagn Ole Godtfredsen
376 F.2d 982 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1967)
Application of Fritz Uhlig
376 F.2d 320 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1967)
Application of Alexander R. Surrey
370 F.2d 349 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1966)
Application of Reynold E. Holmen
347 F.2d 852 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1965)
Application of John F. Corr
347 F.2d 578 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1965)
Application of Nathaniel Grier
342 F.2d 120 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1965)
Application of Louis I. Hansen and Alexis G. Coutsicos
332 F.2d 825 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1964)
Application of Robert A. Boller
332 F.2d 382 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
306 F.2d 494, 49 C.C.P.A. 1301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/application-of-oskar-sus-and-werner-schaefer-ccpa-1962.