Appeal No. 2005-0247 Page 5
Application No. 10/171,657
construction, the limitations merely require electing ink present in the middle space of
an annular shaped bubble.
2. Obviousness Determination
"Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious." Massingill, at *3. The question
of obviousness is "based on underlying factual determinations including . . . what th[e]
prior art teaches explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko,, 1383, 59 USPQ2d 1693,
1696 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1616 (Fed.
Cir. 1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Here, Campbell "provide[s] a thermal drop-on-demand ink jet print head. . . ."
Col. 2, l. 13. More specifically, the print head "comprises a suitable substrate
member 10, upon one surface 11 of which is formed an array of resistive heater
elements 12. . . ." Col. 2, ll. 49-51. "A second substrate 18 is fixed in position adjacent
to substrate 10 so that a nozzle 19 is opposite each of the resistive heating
elements 12. Substrate 18 is shaped to provide an ink flow channel 20 to distribute . . .
ink to the print cavity 21 which holds a predetermined volume of ink between the
resistive heater elements 12 and the corresponding nozzle 19." Col. 3, ll. 7-13.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007