Appeal 2007-1054
Application 10/640,067
Additionally, we have found that Baughman teaches laser machining, etc. as
being useful processes for removing excess substrate material from a desired
area. (Finding of Fact 5.) We note, however, that Baughman does not
particularly disclose conditioning the substrate after forming the ink fill slot
thereon to remove debris therefrom before positioning the orifice layer on
the substrate. We find nonetheless that cleaning the substrate to remove
debris before positioning the orifice layer thereon was a common practice in
the art at the time of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would
have readily appreciated that the orifice layer cannot be positioned on a
substrate covered with debris until all of said debris has been removed.
Removing debris from a surface before positioning another surface thereon
was well-known in the art at the time of the invention to enhance the
adhesion of said surfaces.
Furthermore, it has been held that the rule that anticipation requires
that every element of a claim appears in a single reference accommodates
situations where the common knowledge of “technologists” is not recorded
in a reference, i.e., where technical facts are known to those in the field of
the invention. Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269,
20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749-50 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Similarly, In re Graves, 69
F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995), confirms the
longstanding interpretation that the teachings of a reference may be taken in
combination with knowledge of the skilled artisan to put the artisan in
possession of the claimed invention within 35 U.S.C. § 102 even though the
patent does not specifically disclose certain features. Thus, even though
Baughman does not particularly discuss cleaning the substrate before
positioning the orifice layer thereon, we find that Baughman anticipates the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013