Appeal No. 1998-3131 Page 9
Application No. 08/192,224
prior art would appear to have suggested the claimed
limitations of "a flexible circuit attached to the print head
and shaped to define with the pen body a part of the first ink
circulation passageway" or "a flexible circuit member covering
the print head and shaped to define with the body and the
print head, part of the ink passageway ...." The examiner
fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-6 and 9 as
obvious over Chan in view of Barbero; the rejection of claims
7, 8, and 14 as obvious over Chan in view of Barbero further
in view of Hoisington; and the rejection of claim 1-5 as
obvious over Chan in view of Nozawa. Next, we address claim
15.
Claim 15
The examiner asserts, "the alignment features on the body
for aligning the printhead is taught by Chan et al.'s sunken
receptacles which can be varied and controlled in order to
receive the printheads (col. 6, lines 32-66)." (Examiner's
Answer at 7.) The appellant argues, "[t]he Examiner has not
referred to a feature of any device in Chan, Barbero or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007