Appeal No. 1997-3959
Application No. 08/183,693
fluid to the two types of nozzles. Therefore, we sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 63 by Uchiyama.
With respect to claim 83, which depends on claim 82,
which in turn depends on claim 45, Uchiyama does show the
teaching of having a plurality of coating nozzles (column 4,
lines 60-65). Furthermore, Figure 3 of Uchiyama clearly shows
that there are four nozzles for dispensing the ink, and there
is one nozzle for the coating fluid. Therefore, Uchiyama
shows the first orifices being an integer multiple of the
second orifice as claimed. Therefore, we sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 83 by Uchiyama. For the same
rationale, we sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 89
and 97 by Uchiyama.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 52-54, 58-60, 65, 66, 72, 73, 81, 83-87, 89, and
97-99 are rejected as being obvious over Uchiyama as explained
by the Examiner at pages 5-6 of the Examiner's answer. The
Examiner asserts that even though Uchiyama does not teach the
specific thermal and spray type nozzles, it would have been
obvious at the time of the invention "to control the amount of
heat to the different types of heating means because differing
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007