Appeal No. 2001-1773
Application No. 08/732,864 Page 13
separate inkjet printhead of Bullock be mounted to the pen body.
The examiner's conclusionary statement that the modification
would have been obvious as a rearrangement of parts, or making
integral what is separate, is not a substitute for evidence.
Because we find no reason to modify the ink cartridge of Bullock
in view of the semiconductor chip array of Watrobski, we find
that the prior art does not suggest "an inkjet printhead mounted
to the pen body" as recited in claim 1. Moreover, because
Bullock only estimates the drop volume, and Watrobski provides
uniform spot size, from which drop weight can only be inferred2,
we find that neither Bullock nor Watrobski teaches or suggests
"identifying said corresponding actual drop weight for said
printhead" as required by claim 1.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 1. The
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-4 and 11, dependent therefrom,
is reversed. Because each of the remaining independent claims
recites either or both of an inkjet printhead mounted to the pen
body or identifying said corresponding actual drop weight for
said printhead, the rejection of claims 5-10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is also reversed.
2 Specification, page 9.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007