Appeal No. 1998-2159 Page 4
Application No. 08/539,892
obviousness is established by presenting evidence that would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
The appellants argue that the applied prior art does not
suggest the claimed subject matter. We agree.
All the claims under appeal require the resistors on a
semiconductor circuit chip that act to vaporize ink to also be
electrically driven in a manner sufficient to bond the chip to
a nozzle plate. However, this limitation is not suggested by
the applied prior art for the reasons that follow.
Schantz teaches (column 4, line 8, to column 6, line 41)
a printhead formed by bonding the back surface of a polymer
tape having inkjet orifices to a silicon substrate having
resistors and a barrier layer thereon. Schantz also suggests
(Figures 10-11; column 7, lines 16-57) that the barrier layer
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007