Appeal No. 1999-1560
Application No. 08/974,108
37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), citing W.L. Gore & Assocs.,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 311,
312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Here the examiner has provided no prior art
which would have suggested the desirability of using an oval shape
for the various elements of Shimizu. The only suggestion of an oval
shape comes from appellants' specification. Thus, the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Second, as to the examiner's contention that appellants have
failed to show criticality in the specification, we disagree. The
examiner apparently overlooked appellants' statements in the
specification that (1) the oval shape "assures precise, reliable and
easy positioning of the main frame, head assembly and flexible
cable," (see page 5), (2) "[t]he oval flexible cable 16 is precisely
fitted into the oval hollow portion 14a .... Thus, the electrodes
16a are easily positioned in such a manner as to precisely correspond
to the piezoelectric elements 40 on a one-to-one basis," (see page
19) and (3) "[a]ll of the hollow opening 14a, flexible cable 16,
flexible member 18 and rimmed window 22a have the same oval shape, so
that the main frame 14, flexible cable 16, flexible member 18 and
sub-frame 22 can be precisely and easily positioned with respect to
one another. Therefore, the ink jet printing head can be
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007