Appeal No. 1997-0316
Application No. 08/218,951
In our view, appellant has established a reasonable basis
to believe that the two types of printheads are not
interchangeable and the examiner has offered no proof of his
allegation of them being “art recognized as both alternative
and interchangeable.” In addition to a lack of any motivation
for making the suggested combinations of references, even if
combined, it is not at all clear how the examiner would modify
the “side shooter” printhead of Shiozaki, via the teachings of
the other references, in order to not only provide for the
instant claimed elements but also to provide for the “top
shooter” type of printhead required by the language of the
instant claims.
While we agree with the examiner that the discontinuity
of Shiozaki may be considered to be “selectively disposed,” as
broadly claimed, as explained supra, we cannot agree with the
examiner’s combination of references. We also point out, as
did appellant, that Taniguchi, albeit directed to a “top
shooter” type of printhead, actually teaches away from the
claimed invention because Taniguchi indicates [page 3 of the
translation] that discontinuities are problems to be avoided
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007