Appeal No. 2001-1081
Application No. 09/067,965
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 11) and the answer (paper number 12) for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 19.
According to the examiner’s analysis (answer, pages 4 through 6), Hadimioglu discloses all
of the system structure set forth in claim 1. The examiner’s contentions to the contrary
notwithstanding, Hadimioglu is directed to a single printhead 300, and to the control of the ink
ejectors 131 in this single printhead (Figure 10; column 3, lines 12 and 13; column 6, lines 27
through 59). A second printhead is not described by Hadimioglu. Since the examiner relied on the
secondary teachings of Hawkins for the latches of dependent claim 9, we agree with the appellant’s
argument (brief, page 6) that “Hadimioglu taken singly or in combination with Hawkins fail[s] to
teach or suggest the claimed combination of . . . a multiple drop per spot printer with a first
printhead and a second printhead; a memory for specifying ejectors of the printheads where the
actuation interval of the spot cycle of a first printhead is out of phase with the actuation interval of
the second printhead . . .” (emphasis added). Accordingly, the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 3 and 5 through 16 is reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claim 4 is reversed because the teachings of Yasufuku fail to
cure the noted shortcoming in the teachings of Hadimioglu.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007