Appeal No. 1997-1380
Application 08/301,508
The appellants contend that the invention recited in
claims 1 and 13 is not anticipated by Helinski because
Helinski does not meet the limitation in claim 1 requiring the
dispenser to be capable of dispensing a second material
simultaneously with the dispensing of the first material from
the first jet, or the corresponding limitation in claim 13
requiring the dispensing of the second material via the
dispenser simultaneously with the dispensing of the first
material via the first jet.
The appellants’ position here is belied by Helinski’s
drawing figure which shows the droplets of particle material
18 and support material 20 being dispensed simultaneously from
their respective jets/dispensers 10. Thus, the appellants’
argument that Helinski is not anticipatory with respect to the
subject matter recited in claims 1 and 13 is unconvincing.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of these claims.
As for the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
dependent claims 2 through 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18 as
being unpatentable over Helinski in view of Pomerantz,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007