Appeal No. 2005-0284
Application No. 10/035,902
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we concur
with the examiner that the subject matter of claim 1 is described
in Hawkins within the meaning of § 102. However, we find that
the examiner's § 102 rejection of claim 2 is not well-founded.
We consider first the examiner's rejection of claim 1, with
which claims 3-8 stand or fall. Contrary to appellants'
argument, Hawkins describes a continuous inkjet printer having
the claimed mechanism and controller that allow the nozzles to
emit either small or large volume ink droplets that enable the
reference printer to be capable of emitting small and large
volume droplets from adjacent nozzles. In relevant part, Hawkins
discloses the following:
Ink drop forming mechanism 22 . . . is selectively
activated at various frequencies causing filaments of
working fluid 20 to break up into a stream of selected
ink drops (one of 26 and 28) and non-selected ink drops
(the other of 26 and 28) with each ink drop 26, 28
having a volume and a mass. The volume and mass of
each ink drop 26, 28 depends on the frequency of
activation of ink drop forming mechanism 22 by a
controller 24.
(Column 5, lines 49-57). Significantly, appellants are not
claiming a process of printing wherein ink droplets of large
volume are not simultaneously emitted from adjacent ones of said
nozzles, but, rather, an apparatus that is capable of performing
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007