Appeal No. 1999-1629
Application 08/510,491
and operates other nozzles different from the set of nozzles
when there is no mail item in front of the print head.
It appears that Herbert is the main reference primarily
because it teaches an inkjet printer used in a franking
machine. Nakagawa and Fisher show ink jet printers, but do
not disclose printing a postal mark on a mail item. Herbert
teaches cleaning external debris from the nozzles, but does
not teach cleaning the print head nozzles to prevent clogging
by ejecting ink as in Nakagawa and Fisher.
The Examiner finds that "[o]bviously, the number of
nozzles in the group would be less than the total number of
nozzles in the row in Herbert" (EA3).
We find no express support in Herbert for this finding.
However, Appellant does not dispute this finding in the briefs
and, when asked at oral hearing, counsel for Appellant agreed
that such limitation is implicit in Herbert. The admitted
prior art, although not relied on, confirms that it was known
to use less than the total number of nozzles in the row of
nozzles to print a postal mark (specification, pp. 1-3).
Therefore, we find that it was known in prior art devices,
such as Herbert, for the inkjet print head to have a row of
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007