Appeal 2007-0960
Application 10/066,529
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Smith US 4,791,435 Dec. 13, 1988
Prakash US 6,302,507 B1 Oct. 16, 2001
The Examiner’s rejections are as follows:
1. Claims 3, 24, 27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Smith.
2. Claims 4-11, 21, 22, 25, 28, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Smith in view of Prakash.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to
be fully met by the disclosure of Smith (Answer 3-4). Regarding the
independent claims, Appellants argue that Smith does not disclose
estimating an actual temperature of the printhead assembly based on (1) a
measured or current operating temperature of the printhead assembly; (2) a
thermal response model of the printhead assembly; and (3) an ejection
history of the ejection elements, wherein the thermal response model
includes (a) a first set of parameters when the ejection elements have been
fired, and (b) a second set of parameters when the ejection elements have not
been fired as claimed (Br. 7, 10; Reply Br. 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013