Appeal No. 96-2881
Application No. 08/013,646
support a rejection, whether or not in a minor capacity, there
would appear to be no excuse for not positively including the
reference in the statement of the rejection. In re Hoch, 428
F.2d 1341, 1342, 166 USPQ 406, 407 (CCPA 1970).
Although Lee et al. was mentioned as teaching the
claim language,
...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.)
as discussed supra, this language recites no structural
difference over the cited art (Usui and Mineta), but goes to
the functionality of the invention. Therefore Lee et al. is
not needed for us to sustain the rejection of claim 1. For
this reason and those discussed supra, we will sustain the 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claim 1.
With regard to claim 2, Appellants argue that
“neither Usui et al. nor Mineta teaches or suggests a
recording head which includes a common reserve tank which is
common to two adjacent rows of nozzle openings.” (Brief at
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007