Appeal No. 96-2881
Application No. 08/013,646
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567-68, 1
USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1052
(1987). We agree with the Examiner. The argued language of
claim 1,
...and the rows of nozzle openings in an auxiliary
scanning direction are staggered at a certain pitch
so that an order of arrangement of the rows of
nozzle openings is different from the physically
arranged order,...(Emphasis added.)
provides no structural distinction over the applied art, but
goes to the functionality of the invention. Appellants
support this interpretation as noted supra, wherein each
argument we have cited, stresses this “function”, i.e. during
printing.
Appellants further argue lack of motivation in
combining references. Starting at page 4 of the reply brief,
Appellants state:
In order to arrive at some form of the
Appellants’ claimed invention, one skilled in the
art would have to modify the device taught by Usui
et al. to include at least four rows of nozzle
openings as taught my Mineta, and further modify the
four rows of nozzle openings to be arranged into
pairs such that the space between each pair is
greater than the space between each row in each
pair. Finally, the device resulting from the
combined teachings of Usui et al. and Mineta would
have to be further modified by modifying the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007