Appeal No. 2001-1081
Application No. 09/067,965
Turning to the obviousness rejection of claims 17 through 19, the examiner is of the opinion
(answer, page 8) that Hara discloses all of the steps of method claim 17. Hara is directed to the
selective control of heat generating bodies 208-1 through 208-5 in a discharge orifice of an ink jet
delivery device to thereby develop foams 218-1 through 218-5 for different sized ink droplets 220
(Figure 2C; Abstract; column 5, lines 26 through 52). The examiner relied on the teachings of
Hawkins for the memory retrieval step of claim 19 (answer, page 9). Thus, the obviousness
rejection of claims 17 through 19 is reversed because we agree with appellant’s argument (brief,
page 8) that Hara and Hawkins fail to disclose first and second printheads operated out of phase
with respect to each other.
DECISION
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007