Appeal 2007-1054
Application 10/640,067
ISSUES
The pivotal issues in the appeal before us are as follows:
(1) Have Appellants shown that the Examiner failed to establish that the
disclosure of Baughman anticipates the claimed invention under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Particularly, does Baughman’s disclosure of
forming an ink fill slot and orifices on a substrate of a thermal ink-jet
print-head teach Appellants’ conditioning of a slotted substrate prior to
positioning the orifice layer over the slotted surface?
(2) Have Appellants shown that the Examiner failed to establish that one of
ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the present invention, would have
found that the combined disclosures Baughman with Maggs or Eyler
render the claimed invention unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance
of the evidence.
The Invention
1. Appellants invented a system for conditioning the slotted substrate of
a fluid ejecting device. (Specification 4).
2. As depicted in Figure 3, the fluid ejecting device (204) includes a
substrate (300) having a fluid handling slot (305) formed into a first surface
of the substrate (303) by laser machining and positioned between the first
substrate surface (303) and a second surface of the substrate (302). (Id. 6.)
3. Subsequently to forming the fluid handling slot (305), the first
substrate is mechanically conditioned to remove debris (500) deposited
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013