Appeal 2007-1054
Application 10/640,067
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
A. Claims 28 through 32 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Baughman.
B. Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baughman in view of Maggs.
C. Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baughman in view of Eyler.
The Examiner contends that Baughman’s disclosure of forming an ink
fill slot and orifices on a substrate of a thermal ink-jet print-head teaches the
claimed invention. Therefore, the Examiner contends that Baughman
anticipates claims 28-32 and 35. (Answer 3 through 6.) In response,
Appellants contend that Baughman does not anticipate the cited claims.
Particularly, Appellants contend1 that Baughman does not fairly teach or
suggest forming a fluid-handling slot in part by laser machining into the first
surface of a substrate. (Br. 5, Reply Br. 3.) Appellants further contend that
Baughman does not teach or suggest mechanically conditioning the first
surface of the substrate prior to positioning an orifice layer on the slotted
substrate, as recited in independent claim 28. (Br. 6; Reply Br. 6).
We affirm.
1 This decision considers only those arguments that Appellants submitted in
the Appeal and Reply Briefs. Arguments that Appellants could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to have been waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1) (vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004). See also In re Watts, 354
F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
We rely on and refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on Aug. 24, 2006.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013