Ex parte TAKEMOTO et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1997-1335                                                        
          Application No. 08/201,023                                                  









                    Claims 1 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103               
          as being unpatentable over Miura in view of Fujimura.                       
                    Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or                 
          the Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer                 
          for the details thereof.                                                    
                                       OPINION                                        
                    After a careful review of the evidence before us, we              
          agree with the Examiner that claims 1 and 5 are properly                    
          rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103.                                             
                    The Examiner reasons that Miura teaches the claimed               
          nozzle plate in Figure 11B, wherein element 52 is the ink                   
          repelling layer surrounding the nozzle holes.  As shown in                  
          Figure 11B, an uncoated area exists around each nozzle hole.                
          Since Miura does not specify the relative size of the uncoated              
          area, the Examiner has turned to Fujimura.  Fujimura teaches                
          the benefits of having an uncoated area around nozzle slits,                


                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007