Appeal No. 2005-0381 Page 10
Application No. 09/841,380
Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Tech. Corp., 121 F.3d 1461, 1472, 43 USPQ2d 1481, 1489 (Fed.
Cir. 1997).
We conclude that the Examiner established a prima facie case of obviousness with regard
to the subject matter of claim 37 and claim 58, the claim standing or falling therewith, which was
not sufficiently rebutted by Appellants and that, moreover, the evidence supports a finding of
anticipation.
Group IV, Claim 38
Claim 38 requires that the electrostatic spray head produce a line of charged droplets.
We agree with the Examiner that the sprayer of Hess is capable of producing a line of charged
droplets as claimed. Appellants argue that Hess shows the sprayer head described therein in
cross-section only and that the sprayer head may produce circular patterns (Brief, p. 9). It
appears that what Appellants are referring to is the possibility that the nozzle opening of Hess
may be circular rather than an elongated slot or a series of nozzles. We are not convinced by this
argument because it does not recognize the breath of the claim. The claim does not require
either an elongated nozzle opening or a series of nozzles in a line. Nor does the claim exclude a
circular nozzle opening. Any line of droplets meets the requirements of the claim. It reasonably
appears that the nozzle of Hess is capable of generating droplets traveling in a line from the
nozzle to the roll. This is due to the fact that operational parameters such as droplet viscosity,
droplet velocity, electric potential differential, and other factors affect the path of the droplets to
the surface. As it is reasonable to conclude that the electrostatic spray head of Hess is capable of
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007