Appeal No. 2005-0247 Page 8
Application No. 10/171,657
In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Wiggins,
488 F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 424 (CCPA 1973)). Those persons "must be
presumed to know something" about the art "apart from what the references disclose."
In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962).
Here, as aforementioned, Campbell "provide[s] an ink flow channel 20 to
distribute . . . ink to the print cavity 21. . . ." Col. 3, ll. 3-5. Persons skilled in the art
would have realized that ink in the ink flow channel would exert a pressure on its
surroundings.
The appellants also allege that the ink from Campbell's virtual chamber "will
clearly not rise past all the ink between nozzle 19 and bubble 22 to be the ink ejected."
(Req. Reh'g at 10.) "[A]rgument of counsel cannot take the place of evidence."
In re Budnick, 537 F.2d 535, 537, 190 USPQ 422, 424 (CCPA 1976) (citing
In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 145 USPQ 716 (CCPA 1965); In re Cole, 326 F.2d 769,
140 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1964)). Here, the appellants offer no evidence to support their
allegation that ink from the reference's virtual chamber will not be ejected. Because the
purpose of Campbell's drop-on-demand ink jet print head is to eject ink, and the ink has
nowhere else to go once the chamber disappears, we maintain our affirmance of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007