Appeal 2006-2643
Application 09/771,092
In addition to the admitted prior art found in Appellant’s
Specification, the Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence
of obviousness:
Bares US 5,023,625 Jun. 11, 1991
Ford US 6,045,759 Apr. 04, 2000
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method for dispensing
drops from a pulse jet comprising striking the pulse jet at least once. The
purpose of striking the pulse jet is to remove a bubble, such as an air bubble,
which inhibits fluid dispensing from the jet (see Specification 2).
Appealed claims 1-14 and 35-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bares in view of Ford.
In accordance with the grouping of claims set forth at page 6 of the
principal Brief, the following groups of claims stand or fall together:
(1) claims 1, 9, 10, and 37; (2) claims 2, 3, and 38; (3) claims 5-8;
(4) claims 11-14 and 39-42; and (5) claims 35 and 36.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the following
for emphasis only.
There is no dispute that Bares discloses dispensing drops from a pulse
jet of the type claimed but does not disclose striking the pulse jet. Ford, on
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007