Appeal No. 2000-0703
Application No. 08/490,268
ink-jet printing elements, the scanning of the carriage
across the medium, and the shifting of the medium.
[] Those familiar with printers, . . . would
understand that the hardware structure of Fig. 6 is
conventional and that modifying the operation of the
conventional printer in accordance with the claims in
my patent application may be performed by minor
software or firmware (for speed) changes.
We are of the view that the examiner has not presented any
convincing arguments to show that undue experimentation is
necessary to carry out the invention as claimed. Instead, we
agree with appellants (reply brief at page 3) that “[t]he patent
laws make clear that software code is not required to enable an
invention. More specifically, programming a printer to carry out
certain techniques is analogous to programming a computer.” We
conclude that the invention as disclosed in the specification
would have enabled an artisan to shift the position
of the printing medium and the activation of the ink ejection
elements and the nozzles in the recited manner, resulting in a
uniform wear of the ink ejection elements and the nozzles.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 6,
8, 10, 13 through 20 and 24 through 26 for lack of enablement.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007