Appeal No. 1999-1629
Application 08/510,491
be a matter of common sense). The references provide
sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. The rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 7-10 is
sustained.
Claims 4-6, 8, and 10
Claim 4 defines a controller that alternatively operates
different sets of consecutively disposed nozzles, each set
having a number of nozzles less than the total number of
nozzles in the row, to print the postal mark on a plurality of
mail items, such that in time, all of the nozzles are
operated. That is, the set of nozzles that prints the postal
mark is not always the same.
The Examiner states (EA5-6):
The features recited in claim 4 the "controller
alternatively operates different ones of said sets of
said nozzles so as in time to operate all of said nozzles
of said row of nozzles" are at least suggested by
Herbert.
As stated at column 5, lines 3-10, Herbert suggests
that print head can be controlled by print signals which
are sent either serially or in parallel. Because the
controls of the group of nozzles are associated with the
print signals, respectively, the group of nozzles is thus
also responded either serially or in parallel.
Eventually, by firing nozzles in sequentially [sic] order
all nozzles in the row will be fired over time. As for
controlling the actuating of nozzles in a particular
- 13 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007