Appeal 2007-1054
Application 10/640,067
characteristics in the formation of the fluid handling slot. Laser machining
is discussed in Appellants’ Specification as being one of many possible slot
formation techniques.3 However, no particular benefit associated with the
laser formation technique is particularly discussed. Similarly, the step of
broadly mechanically conditioning the substrate surface [after forming the
fluid handling slot and prior to positioning the orifice layer on the substrate],
as recited in claim 28, is not stated in the claim to impart any distinctive
structural characteristics to the substrate surface and Appellants have
presented no evidence to us that it does. As discussed below, cleaning a
surface to remove debris therefrom before positioning another surface
thereon is a routine practice in the art. Appellants’ Specification provides no
distinctive characteristics for such step other than what is already known in
the art.4 Therefore, these steps cannot be relied upon to patentably
distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art of record.
Notwithstanding the preceding discussion, we find that Baughman
reasonably teaches the limitation of forming a fluid handling slot in part [by
laser machining into a first substrate surface], as detailed in the Findings of
Fact section above. That is, Baughman’s disclosure of a laser
micromachining process for forming an ink fill slot in a substrate surface
explicitly teaches the recited claim limitation. (Finding of Fact 6.) Further,
we find that Baughman discloses positioning the orifice layer on the
substrate subsequently to forming the ink fill slot on said substrate, as
detailed in the Findings of Fact section above. (Finding of Fact 7.)
3 Appellants’ Specification, at pages 2 and 4, indicates slot formation
techniques include etching, laser machining, abrasive jet machining, and/or
sawing.
4. Id.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013