Appeal No. 2005-2186
Application No. 09/750,664
Notwithstanding the cross-hatching in the drawings, a fair
reading of Hochberg clearly indicates that the body of printing
head 30 is not made of a homogenous conductive material as
asserted by the examiner. If the body were made of such a
material, the wires 40 and electrode 42 would not function in the
manner disclosed to mark the coated paper. Thus, the examiner’s
determination that wires 40 and electrode 42 constitute a field
applier which forms an equipotential surface as recited in claim
1 rests on a faulty factual finding. Hochberg simply does not
convey enough information about the printing head 30 to
ascertain its structural make-up. Hence, any conjecture as to an
equipotential surface stemming from the supposed construction of
the head would be unduly speculative.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2
and 3, as being anticipated by Hochberg.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007