Appeal No. 1999-1565
Application No. 08/494,227
and therefore the reason for using the plate 4 of the Kattner
reference is eliminated.
One important indicium of non-obviousness is "teaching
away" from the claimed invention by the prior art. In re Dow
Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1532 (Fed.
Cir. 1988), In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 784, 26 USPQ2d 1529,
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, Suzuki teaches away from using 9
a channel plate by teaching that a disadvantageous pressure
loss occurs where long passages are formed between the
pressure chambers and the ink output orifices, and that the
head is more compactly designed as the ink jet drop can be
directly ejected from the pressure chamber through the
orifice. Thus, the addition of channel plate between the10
core and orifice plate of Suzuki would increase the ink
passage length and further decrease the pressure.
We are not inclined to dispense with proof by evidence
when the proposition at issue is not supported by a teaching
in a prior art reference or shown to be common knowledge of
unquestionable demonstration. Our reviewing court requires
9Column 1, lines 54-57; column 8, lines 24-27
1036 of figure 3
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007