Appeal No. 2000-0722
Application No. 08/646,399
language of the claims, and we disagree with the examiner’s interpretation of the clear
teachings of Takeshima. Takeshima discloses the side view of the basic structure of the
ink supply structures and the placement of the piezoelectric element 3 in Figure 1(a).
Takeshima in Figures 1(b) and 2(a) shows a cross sectional view along line A-A in Figure
1(a). Therefore, the views in Figures 1(b) and 2(a) are bottom views since the
piezoelectric element 3 is shown with dotted (hidden) lines. Hence, we find that the
dimension of S2 would have an increased width rather than increased depth as indicated
by the examiner. (See also, appellant’s argument at page 7 of the brief.) Therefore, we
will not sustain the rejection since the examiner has not shown that all of the elements are
taught or inherent in Takeshima as recited in the language of independent claim 1.
35 U.S.C. § 103
The examiner relies on the teachings of Koizumi to teach various limitations of the
dependent claims, but does not rely on Koizumi to teach or suggest the claimed
relationship between the expansible member and the first and second portions as recited
in the language of claim 1. Claim 1 requires that “the second portion of the ink channel
being between the expansible member and the nozzle and the first portion of the ink
channel being adjacent to the expansible member, the depth of the second portion being
larger than the depth of the first portion and being larger than a height of the nozzle.” (See
also brief at page 10.) From our review of Koizumi, we find that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007