Appeal No. 2006-2396
Application No. 10/293,133
With respect to claim 5, appellants argue that merely having a seating surface for the
control plate in Roy does not mean that plate 92B has a datum surface to locate the front
membrane relative to the head as claimed. Appellants argue that the examiner’s findings
with respect to Roy are incorrect [brief, pages 10-11]. The examiner responds that there
is no difference between the datum surface 40F of appellants’ disclosed invention and
protrusion 94 of Roy. The examiner notes that protrusion 94 of Roy clearly provides the
gap between the substrate 42 and the liquid level control plate 56 [answer, page 9].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 5 for the reasons argued by the
examiner in the answer. We agree with the examiner that appellants have failed to
explain how the disclosure of the claimed invention, which provides support for the
claimed invention, differs from the teachings of Roy.
With respect to claims 14, 16, and 17 which are argued together, appellants make
essentially the same arguments that we considered above with respect to claim 4. Since
we found these arguments unpersuasive for reasons discussed above, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 16, and 17 for the reasons discussed above.
With respect to claims 18 and 20-23 which are argued together, appellants argue that
Roy fails to disclose that the distribution stack has tooling control features (both vertical
and lateral) and that the acoustic array is controllably located relative to the front
membrane with this tooling control feature. With respect to claim 19, appellants make
the same spacer arguments that we considered above with respect to claim 2 [brief, pages
12-13]. The examiner responds that there is no difference between the datum surface 40F
of the disclosed invention and protrusion 94 of Roy. The examiner also argues that the
argued vertical and lateral control is not persuasive because this feature is not recited in
the claimed invention [answer, pages 9-10].
We will sustain the examiner rejection of claims 18-23 for the reasons argued by the
examiner in the answer. Although appellants argue generally that the claimed invention
is not fully met by the disclosure of Roy, they never fully address the manner in which
the examiner has read the claimed invention on the disclosure of Roy. Therefore, we are
unpersuaded by appellants’ arguments that Roy fails to anticipate the claimed invention.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007