Appeal No. 1999-1577
Application No. 08/537,060
The examiner’s reasoning is faulty as it provides no
proper rationale for modification. No evidence of motivation
to modify Baker’s exit port structure is shown by the
examiner’s merely stating that appellants have not shown any
stated problem to be solved. In fact, appellants do disclose
that their arrangement places the exit ports closer together,
allowing a single heater chip to be used (see the top of page
2 of the specification, wherein, in the discussion of the
prior art, appellants state that "[f]or reasons of nozzle
assembly manufacture, it is preferred to have the three nozzle
arrays for the three colors of ink closely adjacent one
another using a single heater chip").
While we need not reach a discussion of the Ishinaga
reference because it does not supply the deficiencies of Baker
(Ishinaga was used by the examiner to show a downwardly sloped
channel as per instant claim 7), we note that even if we were
to reach this reference, it would not teach or suggest the
claimed downward slope of the first and second crossflow
channels. Ishinaga is concerned only with a single ink
chamber, not the three that are claimed. Therefore, Ishinaga
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007