Appeal No. 2005-1630 Page 4
Application No. 10/665,752
Appellants argue that there is no teaching in the cited prior art of a screen having
a “pore size small enough to prevent air passage at operational pressures and large
enough to allow said dispersed colorant particles to pass therethrough” as required by
claim 1.
It is true that the prior art does not explicitly describe a screen having a pore size
that prevents the passage of air, but allow the dispersed colorant particles to pass there
through. Soga does describe that the screen has perforations which have a diameter
that is determined by the characteristics of the ink used, and prevents air from entering
the ink tank (col. 8, lines 32 to 41). It is our view that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to use pigmented ink in the ink jet printer of Soga to obtain
good print quality and would have known that the perforations would have to be large
enough for the colorant in the pigmented ink to pass. If the diameter of the perforations
were not large enough for the colorant of the pigmented ink to pass the ink jet cartridge
would not be useful for printing.
Appellants also argue that Soga does not discuss pigmented ink or the problems
associated with pigmented ink and thus one would not be motivated to use pigmented
ink in the device of Soga. This argument is not persuasive because Ma describes the
use of the pigmented ink in ink jet printers and Soga discloses changing the diameter of
the perforations in the screen to match the type of ink used and this teaching as we
discussed above, would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007