Appeal No. 97-2943
Application No. 08/319,174
printer due to ink misting caused by airborne particles
discharged from nozzle ports” [final rejection-page 3].
With regard to the specifics of claims 4 through 7
related to gap dimensions or pressure applied to the seal, the
examiner contends that these would have been “an obvious
matter of design choice..since applicant has not disclosed
that this particular gap size solves any stated problem...”
[final rejection-page 3].
The examiner’s analysis as to the application of the
references appears reasonable to us and, when we weigh the
examiner’s rationale against appellants’ arguments, infra, we
find the examiner in a better position.
Appellants first argue that “the instant method
invention, as claimed, is directed to a manufacturing process
whereby the print heads are not ‘mounted’ in a printer
product” whereas Kimura “is directed to a method for purging
an already manufactured and deployed ink jet recording
apparatus” [principal brief-page 5]. We find this argument to
be irrelevant to the instant claimed subject matter because,
contrary to appellants’ position, there is no instant claim
language directed to a “manufacturing process.” There is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007