Appeal No. 1999-1560
Application No. 08/974,108
automatically assembled," (see page 23). In other words, appellants
have indicated in the specification that the oval shape is critical
to the positioning and, thus, to automating the assembly of the
various elements.
Furthermore, appellants' declaration asserts additional reasons
for the oval shape such as better uniformity in the distances between
the pressure chambers and the nozzles and easy adjustment of the
balance of the ink conduit. Although test results and evidence of
unexpected results are two types of secondary considerations, we find
no basis for the examiner's requirement that a declaration include
evidence of unexpected results or test results comparing the prior
art to the claimed invention. Thus, even had the examiner set forth
a prima facie case of obviousness, appellants have established the
criticality for the oval shape. Consequently, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4 through 20.
Regarding the rejection of claim 3 over Shimizu in view of
Matsumoto, Matsumoto fails to overcome the deficiencies of Shimizu.
Therefore, we must reverse the rejection of claim 3.
CONCLUSION
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007