Appeal No. 1999-0427
Application 08/782,272
§ 1.192(a)].
With respect to representative, independent claim 1,
the examiner indicates how he combines the teachings of Tange
and Nakayama to support the rejection [answer, fourth-fifth
pages]. This rejection makes no mention of the dimensions
recited in claim 1. Appellants argue that the recitation that
the grooves in the claimed print head are at least 10 times
longer and twice as deep as they are wide clearly
distinguishes the claimed invention from the applied prior
art. The examiner acknowledges that Nakayama is silent as to
the dimensions of the channels and that Figures 5-9 of
Nakayama would appear to support appellants’ arguments.
Nevertheless, the examiner finds that drawing dimensions are
not necessarily drawn to scale, and that appellants have
disclosed no criticality for the claimed dimensions. The
examiner also notes that the claimed dimensions achieve the
same result as the relative magnetic permeabilities of
Nakayama [answer, seventh-ninth pages].
We will not sustain either of the examiner’s
rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007