Appeal No. 2002-1223
Application 09/435,455
encompasses the step of deflecting droplets in only one
direction.
With this claim interpretation in mind, we observe that
both Smith (e.g., see figure 1 and the written disclosure with
respect thereto) and Muntz (e.g., see figure 1 and the written
disclosure with respect thereto) practice the step of deflecting
plural droplets in a single direction at differing distances or
dimensions. Indeed, the appellant seems to agree that, at least,
Muntz discloses such a deflection step (e.g., see the paragraph
bridging pages 7 and 8 and the first full paragraph on page 11 of
the Reply Brief).
In summary, neither of the independent claims on appeal
distinguishes over Muntz or Smith in the manner argued by the
appellant. For this reason alone, it is appropriate to sustain
the § 103 rejections based on these references.
Alternatively, even if the appealed claims were
interpreted in the manner argued by the appellant, they still
would not be patentable over the applied prior art. As the
appellant seems to appreciate, Muntz discloses deflecting his
droplets along a “fan axis” which is perpendicular to patentee’s
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007