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 9Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007