Appeal No. 1999-0427
Application 08/782,272
been found to be acceptable in tests for practicing the
invention [page 7]. As noted by the examiner in the prior art
rejection, the specification does not assign any criticality
to these disclosed ranges. In fact, it appears to us that the
most critical dimension of the print head is the space between
the adjacent channels so that they do not interfere with each
other. The length of the microchannel would appear to be
least relevant to the practice of the invention and only
determines the length of a line of developer that can be
transferred to a receiver. Thus, the fact that the claimed
channel length to width ratio includes lengths which are much
smaller or larger than the disclosed range appears
inconsequential to us. The original specification indicates
that higher walls are preferred within the tested range. Once
again, the fact that the claimed depth to width ratio includes
depth values larger than the disclosed range does not indicate
lack of compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112. The artisan reading
the specification of this application would not have looked to
the disclosed exemplary ranges as establishing a limit on the
dimensions of the microchannels.
In summary, our view of the original specification is
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007