Appeal 2007-0960
Application 10/066,529
assembly; (2) a thermal response model of the printhead assembly; and (3)
an ejection history of the ejection elements as claimed?
(2) Have Appellants successfully rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie
case of obviousness for claims 4-11, 21, 22, 25, 28, 30, and 32?
FINDINGS OF FACT
At the outset, we note that the Examiner’s findings regarding the
specific teachings of the cited references (Answer 3-6) are not in dispute
except with respect to the limitations of the independent claims noted above.
Accordingly, we will adopt the Examiner’s factual findings regarding the
cited references as they pertain to the undisputed claim limitations.
Smith discloses a thermal inkjet printhead temperature control system
that provides temperature compensation in part by measuring the
temperature of the printhead. In one embodiment, a temperature sensor TS,
such as a thermistor, is placed on the printhead. The output of the thermistor
is connected to microprocessor 2 and is used to achieve “a close estimate” of
the printhead temperature. The estimated temperature can, in turn, be used
to control the printhead temperature (Smith, col. 4, ll. 32-52; col. 1, ll. 62-
64; Figs. 1, 2A-2B). In addition, thermal models of the pens or printheads
are used in conjunction with the temperature sensors as well as the nozzles’
use profiles to provide information useful in controlling printhead
temperature (Smith, col. 1, l. 64 - col. 2, l. 25; col. 4, ll. 52-63).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013