Appeal No. 1997-3959
Application No. 08/183,693
i.e., claims 52, 53, 58, 59, 65, 66, 72, 73, 84-87, 98 and 99
are not rejectable as being obvious over Uchiyama.
With respect to claims 54, and 60 which essentially
contain the same limitation, that is, the claimed limitation
of one orifice being of larger area than the second orifice,
we agree with the Examiner that an artisan would have found
obvious to make the nozzles in Uchiyama of any desirable size
applicable to a particular application. Therefore, we sustain
the obviousness rejection of 54 and 60 over Uchiyama.
With respect to claims 83, 89 and 97, which all call for
the number of one type of nozzle being an integer multiple of
the nozzle of the other type, this is also shown by Uchiyama,
see the number of the ink nozzles and the coating nozzle in
Fig. 3 and our discussion above regarding claim 83 rejected
under section 102. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 83, 89 and 97 over Uchiyama.
With respect to claim 81, the recited means of "coating
material supply means for supplying the coating material on
the recording medium, and gas supply means for supplying a gas
to the coating material supply means to supply the coating
material as a fine mist" is not shown or suggested by Uchiyama
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007