Appeal No. 2001-1773
Application No. 08/732,864 Page 7
Moreover, appellants assert (brief, pages 9 and 10) that after
the ink supply in cartridge 60 is used, the printer may calculate
a drop volume size, based upon the number of drops emitted and
the nominal supply size, which is in contrast with the claimed
invention where the actual drop volume is encoded in the
information storage device, so that the printer can immediately
make use of this information without having to rely upon
conservative estimates and subsequent calculations.
Turning to Watrobski, appellants argue that Watrobski does
not make up for the deficiencies of Bullock because even if
memory chip 76 of Bullock is replaced with a resistor network,
the claimed invention would not result because firstly, the
memory chip 76 of Bullock is not supported by a pen body.
Secondly, Watrobski does not teach identifying the corresponding
actual drop weight for the printhead.
In response, the examiner presents three arguments (answer,
pages 5 and 6). Firstly, the examiner asserts that the portion
of Bullock (col. 3, lines 56-67) which states that engineering
changes to the printer can be corrected without having to provide
revised printer drivers to users by inserting the revised
parameters into the memory chip 76 of an ink cartridge, suggests
that the revised parameters can include drop volume coefficients,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007