Appeal No. 2000-0335
Application No. 08/780,551 Page 6
[S]ince a rejection over 35 U.S.C. 103 has
rendered to address this issue, Fujii et al. meets the
requirements as an equivalent for the term “span”.
In addition, a review of Appellant’s specification does
not point to any criticality for why the second electrode
must “fully span” the orifice of the third electrode.
Although the feature of the second electrode “fully
spanning” the orifice in the third electrode is illustrated
in Figures 1 and 2, “fully spanning” was never discussed as
carrying any weight in the original specification. Further,
stated in the previous office action, Webster’s Ninth New
Collegiate Dictionary defines “span” as “an extent, reach or
between two limits”. Figures 5C of Fujii et al. teaches
that the second electrode #3 extends between two points of
orifice.
Appellants assert (brief, page 4) that Fujii does not teach
or suggest a second electrode between first and third electrodes
wherein the second electrode spans an orifice in the third
electrode, as recited in claims 1 and 7. Appellants argue
(brief, pages 4 and 5 and reply brief, pages 1 and 2) that base
electrode 3 of Fujii does not fully span opening 4 in base
electrode 3 and signal electrode 1. Appellants additionally
argue that it is impossible for the second electrode in Fujii to
fully span the orifice in the third electrode because opening 4
is formed through both electrodes, and that (brief, page 5) "the
device of Fujii would not work if base electrode 3 fully spanned
opening 4 -- there would be no hole through which the toner could
pass."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007