Appeal No. 1997-0758
Application No. 08/140,658
through the fluid;” (emphasis added) as recited in claim 19.
Although Elrod teaches a transducer to radiate acoustic energy
to eject droplets, there is no mention of controlling fluid
viscosity in any manner, and no motivation that would suggest
a combination with Clark.
Since there is no evidence in the record that the
prior art suggested the desirability of combining Clark and
Elrod, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
19. Likewise, the remaining claims on appeal also contain the
above limitations of acoustic fluid ejection and control of
fluid viscosity as discussed with regard to claim 19. Thus,
we will not sustain the rejection as to claims 1 through 18.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007