Appeal No. 96-1228
Application 08/127,480
Appellants argue that "it is clear that there could not
possibly be any suggestion [in Hara] of coating a rear
surface, as required by claim 1" (Br5), that the "rear
surface [of Hara] does not include an ink-repellant coating"
(Br5), and "it is clear that there is absolutely no teaching
or suggestion in Hara that would provide the motivation for
a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply an
ink-repellant coating to the back surface of the nozzle
plate 84 in the Figure 19 embodiment" (Br5). Therefore,
appellants argue that the subject matter of claim 1
distinguishes over Hara because the ink-repellant coating is
on the rear surface. The language of claim 1 does not
support this argument.
Claim 1 recites that the ink-repellant coating is on "a
portion around said nozzle hole contiguous to said rear
surface of said nozzle plate." The language could be
clearer, but it does not require the ink-repellant coating
to be on the rear surface; the coating only has to be
"contiguous to said rear surface" (emphasis added).
"Contiguous" is defined as "1 a(1): touching along
boundaries often for considerable distances ... b: next or
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007