Appeal No. 2004-0680
Application No. 10/057,026
DISCUSSION
As framed and argued by the appellants (see pages 5 through
9 in the brief), the dispositive issue in this appeal is whether
the applied prior art references would have rendered obvious a
thermal bubble inkjet head meeting the limitations in independent
claim 11 requiring a funnel-shaped manifold and primary and
auxiliary ink chambers in fluid communication with each other and
the funnel-shaped manifold. The appellants do not otherwise
challenge the examiner’s findings as to the scope of the appealed
claims, the teachings of the prior art references and the
differences therebetween, or the accompanying conclusion that it
would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the
art to combine the references so as to meet the limitations in
the claims (see pages 4 through 8 in the answer).
As for the issue in dispute, Leban, the examiner’s primary
reference, discloses a thermal bubble inkjet head comprising,
inter alia, a silicon substrate (10, 32), a photoresist (e.g.,
Riston) barrier layer (12, 48) overlying the substrate and
defining an ink injection chamber (14, 52) and a drop ejection
chamber (16, 54) in communication with one another, a source of
indefinite. The examiner has since withdrawn this rejection in
light of the subsequent amendment of claim 11 (see page 6 in the
answer).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007