Appeal No. 1997-3959
Application No. 08/183,693
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Uchiyama. With
respect to claim 52, we agree with Appellants that Uchiyama
does not
show the claimed first and second heating means. Despite the
assertions by the Examiner that Uchiyama teaches an on-demand
voltage excited-type nozzle with a proper exciting system and
may include a heating means (Examiner's answer, page 10), we
are not persuaded that the nozzles in Uchiyama contain any
heating means for the purposes of drying the ink or drying the
coating fluid. Therefore, we cannot sustain the anticipation
rejection of claim 52 by Uchiyama. Since claims 84-86 depend
on claim 52 their anticipation rejection by Uchiyama is also
not sustainable.
With respect to claim 63, which depends on claim 62 which
in turn depends on claim 56, we agree with the Examiner that
Uchiyama does show respectively the ink jet nozzles and the
coating fluid nozzles at 2 and 3 in Figures 1 and 3. Also,
Uchiyama shows the delay means at 7 in Figure 4. Furthermore,
we find that Uchiyama discloses the teaching of the recording
signals providing signals to the orifices via the delay means
and the control means to supply the ink fluid and the coating
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007