Appeal No. 1999-1629
Application 08/510,491
manner (sequential, random, cyclic, alternating), it is
to be noted that a statement of intended use "wherein the
controller alternatively ... nozzles" does not
distinguish the claimed structural apparatus over the
prior art's.
Appellant argues that the serial/parallel teaching bears
exclusively on the manner of signal transmission, and is
irrelevant with respect to a particular group of nozzles used
to print an individual franking impression (RBr3). It is
argued that claim 4 requires more than firing of all the
nozzles in the row over time, but requires a sets of nozzles
which are operated to print the postal mark, each set having
less than the total number of nozzles in the row and being
offset from each other so as to include some of the nozzles of
the other sets (RBr3-4). Lastly, Appellant argues that the
"wherein" language is a functional limitation, not a statement
of intended use which the Examiner is free to dismiss (RBr4).
We agree with Appellant. As discussed in connection with
claim 1, it was known to have an inkjet print head in devices
such as Herbert with a row of nozzles where one set of
consecutive nozzles, the set being less than the 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.
- 14 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007