Ex Parte Entingh et al - Page 2


                   Appeal No. 2006-2396                                                                                           
                   Application No. 10/293,133                                                                                     

                   a front membrane having a print work area, the front membrane sealed to the fluid                              
                   distribution stack; and                                                                                        
                   an acoustic array connected to the fluid distribution stack, the acoustic array being                          
                   controllably positioned by the fluid distribution stack to form a predetermined gap with                       
                   the front membrane;                                                                                            
                   wherein, ink is transferred from the fluid distribution manifold through the fluid                             
                   distribution stack to the predetermined gap for the acoustic array to generate droplets of                     
                   ink emitted from the print work area.                                                                          
                   The examiner relies on the following references:                                                               
                   Roy et al. (Roy)                     6,199,970           Mar. 13, 2001                                         
                   Smith                                     6,276,779           Aug. 21, 2001                                    
                   Claims 1-5, 8-10, 14, and 16-231 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being                              
                   anticipated by the disclosure of Roy.  Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)                       
                   as being anticipated by the disclosure of Smith.  Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under                          
                   35 U.S.C. § 103(a).  As evidence of obviousness, the examiner offers Roy in view of                            
                   Smith.                                                                                                         
                   Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make reference                              
                   to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.                                               
                                                           OPINION                                                                
                   We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced                             
                   by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the                            
                   examiner as support for the rejections.  We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into                            
                   consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs                     
                   along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal                     
                   set forth in the examiner’s answer.                                                                            
                   It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied                          
                   upon supports each of the examiner’s rejections of the claims on appeal.  Accordingly,                         
                   we affirm.                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                 
                   1   Although claim 16 is not listed in the statement of the rejection, it is clear that claim 16 must be part of
                   this rejection since it is the parent claim to claim 17 which is listed in the statement of the rejection.     

                                                                2                                                                 



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007