Ex parte TAKEMOTO et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 96-1228                                                          
          Application 08/127,480                                                      

                         means for enabling a meniscus of ink to be                   
               formed in a more stable manner inside said nozzle hole                 
               so as to at least partially define the shape of the                    
               meniscus, said enabling means including an[] [sic] ink-                
               repellent coating film provided uniformly on said front                
               surface of said nozzle plate, said inner surface of                    
               said nozzle hole, and a portion around said nozzle hole                
               contiguous to said rear surface of said nozzle plate.                  

               The examiner relies on the following prior art:                        
               Hara et al. (Hara)      4,296,421      October 20, 1981                
               Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                     
          being unpatentable over Hara.                                               
               We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 17) (pages                  
          referred to as "FR__") and the Examiner's Answer (Paper                     
          No. 26) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the                
          examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper No. 25) (pages                  
          referred to as "Br__") and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 29)                   
          (pages referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of                           
          appellants' position.                                                       
                                      OPINION                                         
               Claims 1 and 2 are argued to stand or fall together.                   
          Claim 3 is argued separately.                                               

          Claims 1 and 2                                                              


                                        - 3 -                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007