Appeal No. 2005-0284
Application No. 10/035,902
ordinary skill in the art would not understand the nozzle
arrangement depicted in Hawkins to be a linear array.
Upon return of this application to the examiner, the
examiner should weigh the propriety of introducing a rejection of
claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
rejection of claims 1 and 3-8 is affirmed, whereas the examiner's
rejection of claim 2 is reversed. Accordingly, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (effective Sep. 13, 2004; 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(Aug. 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (Sep. 7, 2004)).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
PETER F. KRATZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ECK:clm
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007