Appeal No. 1997-0758
Application No. 08/140,658
The Examiner reasons that Clark teaches most of the
invention (noting Figure 5) with photoconductor portions
(col. 4, lines 53-59) suggesting the use of a plurality of
electrodes (supplemental answer-pages 3 and 4). The Examiner
states, “However, Clark does not disclose providing a
transducer acoustically coupled to the container for focusing
acoustic energy into the electrorheological ink,
...(supplemental answer-page 4).
To provide the transducer, the Examiner indicates
that Elrod discloses a transducer to provide acoustic energy
to a container of ink to control ink spot size for the
nozzleless ink container; and that it would have been obvious
to combine Elrod with Clark (pages 4 and 5 of the supplemental
answer).
Appellants have argued in their brief and reply
brief that the Examiner has not addressed Appellants’
arguments relating to hindsight reconstruction or motivating
force for combining Clark and Elrod. The Examiner responds by
citing Elrod
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007