Appeal 2007-0960
Application 10/066,529
history. For the reasons previously discussed, however, we find Smith
amply discloses these limitations. The rejection is therefore sustained.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellants have not established that the
Examiner erred in finding that Smith estimates 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, Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie
case of obviousness for claims 4-11, 21, 22, 25, 28, 30, and 32.
DECISION
We have sustained the Examiner's rejections with respect to all claims
on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3-11, 21, 22,
24, 25, 27, 28, and 30-32 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013