Appeal No. 1997-0316
Application No. 08/218,951
from said ink firing chamber is expelled normal to the plane
of said heating element.” Independent claims 8, 18 and 25
each recite a heterogeneous nucleation site selectively
disposed “within an essentially perpendicularly projected
footprint of one orifice on a surface of said barrier
layer...” or “within a footprint of one of said at least one
orifice essentially perpendicularly projected on said
thermally insulating layer...”
Appellant explains in great detail, at pages 7-9 of the
brief, why the “top shooter” and “side shooter” printheads are
not interchangeable technologies because of different kinds of
problems and concerns and how Shiozaki’s “side shooter”
printhead does not need to control the location of vapor
bubble formation. Yet, in the face of this reasonable
explanation as to why the skilled artisan would not seek to
combine the two types of technologies, the examiner merely
takes the position that “[s]ince both forms of thermal ink jet
generate a vapor bubble to eject a drop of ink, they are
functionally alternative and interchangeable. In addition,
they are art recognized as both alternative and
interchangeable” [answer-page 5].
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007