Appeal 2007-0960
Application 10/066,529
ANALYSIS
The Anticipation Rejection
We first consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 24, 27, and 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Smith. Regarding
independent claims 24, 27, and 31, we agree with the Examiner that Smith
reasonably teaches 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 as claimed. Moreover,
we agree with the Examiner that Smith’s thermal response model of the
printhead assembly in effect includes parameters depending on whether the
ejection elements have been fired or not been fired essentially for the
reasons stated by the Examiner (Answer 7).
At the outset, we note that Smith expressly states that printhead
temperature varies with the use profile of the printhead (Smith, col. 1, ll. 15-
17); see also id., at col. 1, ll. 43-48 (“Many things influence the temperature
of the nozzle…[including] the amount of use a particular nozzle gets…”).
Second, we note that controlling the temperature of a printhead
involves estimating the actual temperature of the printhead. This
temperature estimation, however, is necessarily based on all three claimed
factors as will be explained below.
Smith teaches that the output of the thermistor is used to achieve “a
close estimate” of the printhead temperature (Smith, col. 1, ll. 62-64; Figs. 1,
2A-2B). Smith further teaches that thermal models of the pens or printheads
are used in conjunction with the temperature sensors as well as the nozzles’
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013