Ex Parte Baiges - Page 2




             Appeal No. 2005-1273                                                             Page 2               
             Application No. 10/057,619                                                                            



                                                 BACKGROUND                                                        
                    The appellant's invention relates generally to inkjet printing devices.  ln particular,        
             the appellant's invention is an inkjet printing system having multiple printheads for                 
             depositing ink droplets onto print media to form images and text on different areas of the            
             print media at the same time.  The use of multiple printheads printing at the same time               
             on different portions of the print media results in greatly increased print media                     
             throughput for the inkjet printing system (specification, p. 1).  A copy of the claims under          
             appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellant's brief.                                         


                    The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                
             appealed claims are:                                                                                  
             Logan                             4,910,871                         Mar. 27, 1990                     
             Asakawa                           4,940,998                         July 10, 1990                     
             Granzow                           5,677,719                         Oct. 14, 1997                     
             Chapin et al. (Chapin)            5,838,343                         Nov. 17, 1998                     
             Yashima et al. (Yashima)          6,164,747                         Dec. 26, 2000                     


                    Claims 1 to 6, 8 to 14, 18, 19, 21 to 28, 30 to 33 and 35 to 44 stand rejected                 
             under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yashima in view of Granzow.1                         

                    1Claim 44 was not included in the statement of this rejection.  However, it is clear           
             from the rejection that the examiner meant to include claim 44 in this ground of                      
             rejection.                                                                                            








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007