Appeal No. 96-2881
Application No. 08/013,646
reinforcing members. Appellants have repeatedly argued and
focused on the language of the next to last paragraph of claim
1, starting with “wherein” through “physically arranged
order,”.
Appellants argue:
Moreover, Usui et al. fails to teach or
suggest a recording head including a nozzle plate
having at least four rows arranged as noted above,
such that the rows of nozzle openings in an
auxiliary scanning direction are staggered at a
predetermined pitch so that an order of arrangement
of the rows (e.g., B, D, C, A, B, ...) during
printing is different from the physically arranged
order (e.g. A, B, C, D), as recited in claim 1.
(Emphasis added.) (Brief at page 7.)
Moreover, while the rows of nozzle openings
illustrated in Figure 7 or Mineta are staggered in
the auxiliary scanning direction, they are not
staggered in such a manner that the order of
arrangement upon printing is different from the
physical order of arrangement, as recited in claim 1
of the present application. (Emphasis
added.) (Brief at page 8.)
In particular, one skilled in the art, reading claim
1 in view of the specification, would clearly
understand that the staggered arrangement of rows of
nozzle openings in an auxiliary scanning direction
where “an order of arrangement of rows of the nozzle
openings is different from the physically arranged
order,” means that the arrangement of rows of nozzle
openings during printing is different from the
physically arranged order of rows of nozzle
openings. When claim 1 is read in light of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007