Appeal No. 2001-2262
Application 09/006,014
appellants that there are no teachings or suggestions within
Takino that support the examiner’s findings that the acknowledged
differences between Takino and the claimed invention would have
been obvious to the artisan.
We now consider the rejection of claim 11 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
over claim 1 of Ruigrok in view of Takino. The examiner finds
that claim 1 of Ruigrok recites the head structure of claim 11
except for the head being a multi-channel head. The examiner
notes that Takino suggests a multi-channel head. The examiner
finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan to modify a
single channel head so that it becomes a multi-channel head as
claimed [answer, page 3].
Appellants argue that the single channel head as taught by
Ruigrok would never be modified to be a multi-channel head as
claimed. Specifically, appellants argue that the dimensions of
the single channel head in Ruigrok preclude its use as a multi-
channel head because it would destroy the specific desirable
properties of the single channel head. Appellants also argue
that the mere mention of multi-channel heads in Takino does not
teach the artisan that the single channel head of Ruigrok can be
made into a multi-channel head as claimed. Finally, appellants
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007