Appeal No. 1999-1629
Application 08/510,491
nozzles where one set of consecutive nozzles, the set being
less than a total number of nozzles in the row, prints a
postal mark on a mail item and an other set of nozzles,
different from the set, is not used.
The Examiner finds that Herbert does not teach the
limitations of the last two paragraphs of claim 1 ("wherein
said controller . . ." and "a reservoir . . ."). The Examiner
relies on Nakagawa and Fisher. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to include the counter of Nakagawa in
Herbert to count the number of discharges of different nozzles
for the purpose of determining which nozzle(s) need
discharging to prevent clogging (EA4). The Examiner further
concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Herbert as
modified by Nakagawa to provide a reservoir and an opening in
the paper handling assembly so that the print head would not
have to be moved out of the printing position to save space
(EA5).
Appellant notes that since the counting is done on an
individual basis, the discharge in Nakagawa may occur from any
of the nozzles, even the ones that are operated during a
normal print cycle (Br5). Appellant argues that the present
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007