Appeal No. 2004-0680
Application No. 10/057,026
ink supply defined at least in part by the substrate (see the ink
flow path arrows in Figure 1A and Figure 5), and a flow input
port (26) in the barrier layer providing communication between
the ink injection and drop ejection chambers and the source of
ink supply.
Leban’s drop ejection chamber and ink injection chamber
respectively constitute a primary ink chamber and an auxiliary
ink chamber as recited in claim 11. This goes without question
by the appellants. Furthermore, given the overall context of the
Leban disclosure, the source of ink supply would have suggested,
if it does not actually teach, a manifold in communication with
the ink injection and drop ejection chambers for supplying ink
thereto.5 In this regard, Leban’s background discussion of the
prior art and brief description of the drawings (see page 2)
indicate that the source of ink supply provides ink to a
plurality of ink injection and drop ejection chambers. Hence,
the source of ink supply at least suggests a “manifold” to the
broad extent disclosed and claimed by the appellants. As
conceded by the examiner (see page 4 in the answer), however,
Leban’s admittedly brief disclosure of the source of ink supply
5 The record does not support the appellants’ assertion of
an admission by the examiner that “Leban et al does not teach a
manifold at all” (brief, page 7).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007