Appeal No. 2006-2396
Application No. 10/293,133
is not commensurate with the invention of claim 1. Therefore, neither of appellants’
arguments persuades us of error in the examiner’s findings of anticipation.
With respect to claim 2, appellants argue that there is no disclosure in Roy of a
spacer in addition to the fluid distribution stack as claimed. Appellants assert that the
protrusion in Roy is different from having both a spacer and a fluid distribution stack as
claimed [brief, pages 7-8]. The examiner responds that claim 2 does not require that the
spacer be separate from the fluid distribution stack. The examiner finds that the
protrusion 94 in Roy is used to achieve a precise spacing between substrate 42 and the
liquid level control plate 56, and that this meets the claimed invention.
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 2 for the reasons argued by the
examiner in the answer. We agree with the examiner that there is no requirement in
claim 2 that the spacer be separate from the fluid distribution stack.
With respect to claim 3, appellants argue that Roy fails to disclose that the spacer
has a plurality of fingers [brief, page 8]. The examiner responds that Roy teaches two
spacer fingers 94 are provided [answer, page 8].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 3 for the reasons argued by the
examiner in the answer. Appellants have failed to address the examiner’s findings
regarding the spacer fingers 94 in Roy.
With respect to claims 4 and 8 which are argued together, appellants argue that Roy
fails to disclose any tooling feature on any plate that is capable of locating any plates
relative to each other as claimed. Appellants note that Roy requires a separate fixture to
perform this locating feature, and the fourth plate in Roy has no hole or tooling feature
for locating other plates as required [brief, pages 8-9]. The examiner responds that the
cutouts of plates 92A-C must align together to properly align the head components. The
examiner also notes that the fourth plate of Roy is unnecessary to meet the three plates of
claim 4 [answer, pages 8-9].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 8 for the reasons argued by
the examiner in the answer. We agree with the examiner that the various holes and
notches placed in the plates of Roy constitute tooling features within the broadest
reasonable interpretation of that term.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007