Court Opinion

ID: 9453973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:30:47.981155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:54.164649
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Judge
(concurring).
The reasons why I am unable to join the opinion of the majority are:
1. For reasons more fully set forth in my dissenting opinion in In re Wiech-ert, 54 CCPA 957; 370 F.2d 927; (1967) the board here consisting of two acting examiners-in-chief" does not constitute a tribunal authorized by the statute to entertain jurisdiction of the appeal. Hence, I think we should decline to review it. Since, the majority in Wiechert did not accept the position, my necessary acceptance of the decision of the majority therein dictates that I should participate in this opinion and I do so on this basis.
2. After consideration of the majority opinion I concur in the result but not in the reasoning by which that result is supported. The appealed claims are product claims. To place the decision to affirm on a comparison of the processes employed by applicant and by the Johnson et al. reference seems to me to be both improper and unnecessary. It requires speculation as to what might happen to the positioning of the supporting plate in conducting the respective processes. I am not persuaded that applicant’s process as disclosed and Johnson’s process as disclosed would necessarily produce the same article insofar as the possible positioning of the metal reinforcing plate is concerned. Rather, I agree with the board’s statement:
We have studied the instant specification and drawings without finding a clear indication therein that appellant’s reinforcement is separated by the resin from the printing shell, and even less, why this should be so. Figure 5 appears to show the reinforcing plate 10 resting on at least two relief *832areas of the electrotype which is identified as 11 in Figure 3.
Appellant stresses the limitation in the appealed claims which requires that the metal reinforcing plate be
* * * disposed adjacent said plas-tice layer and being separated from engagement with said printing shell by said plastic layer, * * *.
This limitation when related to the disclosure in the specification describes the construction of Fig. 5 of the drawings and is consistent with the statement in the specification:
More specifically, the object of this invention is to provide a lightweight laminated printing plate incorporating a perforated tough metallic plate wherein the.metal plate is imbedded in a plastic backing material.
It seems to me that the disclosures in Johnson et al as to the position of his reinforcing plate would necessarily show plastic separation of the reinforcing plate and the electrotype at all areas except at certain peak locations of the electrotype projecting above the general level thereof corresponding to those portions of the relief areas which appellant in Figure 5 of his application shows to be in contact with the reinforcing metal plate in the finished electrotype. On this basis, I would agree with the board that “the separation of the reinforcing plate and the electrotype shell is either obvious from or inherent in the Johnson et al. construction.”