Appeal 2007-0960
Application 10/066,529
model of the printhead assembly; and (3) an ejection history of the ejection
elements.
For at least these reasons, Smith fully meets independent claims 24,
27, and 31. Since Appellants have not separately argued the patentability of
dependent claim 3, it falls with independent claim 24. See In re Nielson, 816
F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Obviousness Rejection
We next consider the Examiner’s rejection of Claims 4-11, 21, 22, 25,
28, 30, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Smith in view
of Prakash. Based on the record before us, we find that the Examiner has
established at least a prima facie case of obviousness of those claims that
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted. Specifically, the Examiner has
(1) pointed out the teachings of Smith, (2) noted the perceived differences
between Smith and the claimed invention, and (3) reasonably indicated how
and why the reference would have been modified by the teachings of
Prakesh to arrive at the claimed invention (Answer 4-6). Once the Examiner
has satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness, the
burden then shifts to Appellants to present evidence or arguments that
persuasively rebut the Examiner's prima facie case.
Here, Appellants did not persuasively rebut the Examiner's prima
facie case of obviousness, but merely noted that the addition of Prakash fails
to cure the deficiencies of Smith in connection with independent claims 24,
27, and 31--namely estimating the actual temperature of the printhead based
on the measured temperature, the thermal response model, and the ejection
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013