Appeal No. 96-1228
Application 08/127,480
surface of said nozzle plate," we sustain the rejection of
claims 1 and 2 over Hara.
In the interest of expediting further prosecution, we
note that if claim 1 had recited providing an ink-repellant
film on the rear surface of the nozzle plate, we would not
accept the examiner's rationale for modifying Hara. The
examiner states that three different surfaces are coated in
figure 14 of Hara and concludes that it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide
a coating to three surfaces of the orifice in figure 19
(FR4). The examiner further states that "[s]uch a film
would be provided on three surfaces of the plate [in
figure 19 of Hara] because a three surface coating would be
needed to provide a land area" (EA4). Hara discloses
coating the inside of a nozzle hole or conduit near the
orifice with an ink-repellant material and does not suggest
coating the rear surface of a nozzle plate. The coating on
the outer surface of the tube in figure 14 of Hara takes no
part in producing a meniscus or in repelling ink and is
apparently there only as a consequence of the coating
process. We find no suggestion to take a coating from an
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007