Appeal No. 1999-1629
Application 08/510,491
Based on our claim interpretation, we conclude that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the inkjet
printing art to operate the other nozzles in Herbert, the ones
not used for printing, "in order to eject ink from said other
nozzles to prevent said other nozzles from becoming clogged
over time" (claim 1) in view of Nakagawa's teaching of
operating non-used or little-used nozzles periodically to
prevent the nozzles from becoming clogged. Appellant does not
argue the limitations about ejecting ink "when said print head
is at said print position and there is no mail item in front
of said print head" (claim 1) and does not address the
teachings of Fisher which are applied to show that ink can be
ejected with the print head at the print position and when no
item is in front of the print head. Thus, the rejection as to
these limitations is not contested. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(8)(iv) (1998) (the brief shall specify the errors
in the rejection). Nevertheless, it is noted that Fisher
teaches ejecting ink into a reservoir (the "spitting" station)
to prevent clogging without moving the print head, and both
Herbert and Fisher teach cleaning the nozzles while there are
no items in front of the print head (which would also seem to
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007