Appeal No. 2005-0284 Application No. 10/035,902 the recited function. Since Hawkins expressly teaches that the volume of each ink droplet can be controlled with the frequency of activation, the printer of Hawkins is capable of controlling the emission of adjacent ink droplets such that they are not both of large volume. Furthermore, we agree with the examiner's reasoning that Figures 1a and 1b of Hawkins depict diagonally adjacent nozzles that do not simultaneously emit droplets of large volume. Claim 1 on appeal does not exclude adjacent nozzles that are adjacent in the diagonal direction. We now turn to the examiner's rejection of claim 2, which requires that "the nozzle array is linear" (emphasis added). While it cannot be gainsaid that the examiner correctly states that "[a] diagonal line is linear" (page 7 of Answer, second paragraph), claim 2 requires a linear array of nozzles, not simply nozzles aligned in a line. Moreover, the Hawkins reference cited by the examiner provides evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret the nozzles of Hawkins as being part of a linear array. Hawkins discloses that "[r]egardless of the type of inkjet printer technology, it is desirable in the fabrication of inkjet printheads to space nozzles in a two-dimensional array rather than in a linear array" (column 2, lines 10-13). Hence, it would appear that one of -4-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007