Appeal No. 2004-0680
Application No. 10/057,026
manifold that is in fluid communication with both a primary and
an auxiliary ink chamber” (brief, pages 7 and 8).
It is of no moment that neither Leban nor Taub teaches a
thermal bubble inkjet head comprising a funnel-shaped manifold
and primary and auxiliary ink chambers in fluid communication
with each other and the funnel-shaped manifold. Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where,
as here, the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this regard,
the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA
1981). In the present case, Taub’s description of the above
noted advantages afforded by the use of a funnel-shaped ink fill
slot or manifold in a thermal inkjet head would have furnished
the artisan with ample suggestion or motivation to employ such a
manifold in the thermal inkjet head disclosed by Leban, thereby
resulting in an inkjet head meeting the limitations in claim 11
argued by the appellants. Thus, the appellants’ position on
appeal that the subject matter recited in independent claim 11,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007