Appeal No. 2000-1371
Application No. 08/867,810
Group 4 relates to consideration in determining the range of NA. Therefore, we will
select a single claim from each group as representative of the group.
GROUP 1
With respect to independent claim 1, we agree with appellant that claim 1 is a
product by process claim (reply brief at page 1) wherein the limitations of the process
do not distinguish the product. Our reviewing court has stated that:
[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the
process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The
patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If
the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious
from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the
prior product was made by a different process.
In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
From our analysis of the instant claim limitations, we find that claim 1 is directed
to a "nozzle plate for an ink jet head provided with nozzle orifices though which ink is to
be ejected" having an "amount of the round portion [becomes] lower than a
predetermined amount." Here, we find that the prior art nozzle plates would have been
manufactured to some set standards, and they would have necessarily had an "amount
of the round portion lower than a predetermined amount," where the predetermined
amount may be any set value or threshold which may be used in a quality check of the
manufacturing. The examiner maintains that Smith teaches:
[i]n certain applications, notably ink jet nozzle production, it is desirable to
control the exact fluence profile on the workpiece in order to achieve
specific wall slopes and shapes. This much is set forth in Smith et al. U.S.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007