Ex Parte Moon et al - Page 7




                 Appeal No. 2005-0247                                                                                  Page 7                     
                 Application No. 10/171,657                                                                                                       


                                                     b. Obviousness Determination                                                                 
                         Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is                                              
                 whether the subject matter would have been obvious.  The question of obviousness is                                              
                 "based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches                                         
                 explicitly and inherently. . . ."  In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383, 59 USPQ2d 1693, 1696                                        
                 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459,                                              
                 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 1999);                                             
                 In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).  Of course,                                              
                 "'[e]very patent application and reference relies to some extent upon knowledge of                                               
                 persons skilled in the art to complement that [which is] disclosed. . . .'"  In re Bode, 550                                     
                 F.2d 656, 660, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538,                                                 
                 543, 179 USPQ 421, 424 (CCPA 1973)).  Those persons "must be presumed to know                                                    
                 something" about the art "apart from what the references disclose."  In re Jacoby, 309                                           
                 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962).                                                                                    


                         Here, Campbell "provide[s] a thermal drop-on-demand ink jet print head. . . ."                                           
                 Col. 2, l. 13.  Because the reference explains that "a heater is selectively energized to                                        
                 form a 'bubble' in the adjacent ink," col. 1, ll. 12-13, and "[t]he rapid growth of the bubble                                   
                 causes an ink drop to be ejected from a nearby nozzle," id. at ll. 13-14, we find                                                









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007