Appeal No. 96-1228
Application 08/127,480
outside surface where it does not touch the ink and move it
to an inside surface where it will interact with the ink.
Therefore, if properly claimed, an ink-repellant coating on
the rear surface of the nozzle plate would be allowable over
Hara. This is a statement under 37 CFR § 1.196(c).
Claim 3
Appellants argue that "claim 3 is further
distinguishable since Hara does not teach or suggest that
the ink-repellant coating film is a eutectoid plating, as
required by claim 3" (Br8). In the Final Rejection, the
examiner stated that "[s]uch plating is not considered of
patentable significance because it is the film that is being
claimed, and because such plating would have been within the
skill of a worker in the art as a coating expedient" (FR3).
The examiner also stated (FR4):
Since eutectoid electroplating or eutectoid
plating is argued to be of patentable significance,
evidence should be submitted to show that these
techniques are not considered expedients within the
skill of a worker in the coating art, and that an ink-
repellant coating film formed by these techniques is
different from an ink-repellant film formed by other
coating processes.
In the Examiner's Answer, the examiner states (EA5):
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007