Appeal No. 2005-0247 Page 10
Application No. 10/171,657
2. Ink Ejection
The appellants argue, however, that "there is no showing that the ink in this
virtual chamber is the ink ejected through nozzle 19." (Reply Br.2 at 8.) The examiner
asserts, "[w]hile the Specification does teach that ink ejection can occur when the virtual
chamber still exists, that is, when the middle portion of the doughnut-shaped bubble has
a very small diameter, the Appellant [sic] has not claimed this feature." (Examiner's
Answer at 9.)
a. Claim Construction
Claims 13 further recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "ink present in
the virtual chamber is ejected through a corresponding one of said nozzles." Giving the
representative claim its broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require
electing ink preset in the middle space of the annular shaped bubble.
b. Obviousness Determination
2Copying the Statement of Real Party in Interest, Related Appeals and
Interferences, Status of Claims, Status of Amendments after Final Rejection, Summary
of the Invention, Issues, Grouping of Claims, and Claims under Appeal sections of the
appeal brief into the reply brief, (Reply Br. at 2-6, 10-16), is neither required by nor
helpful to the Board.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007