Appeal 2007-1054
Application 10/640,067
claimed invention in view of the fact that cleaning a substrate to remove
debris before positioning the orifice layer thereon was known to those in the
field as being a common practice and a necessity. In light of these findings,
it is our reasoned conclusion that Baughman teaches the recited limitations
of independent claim 28. It follows that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claim 28 as being anticipated by Baughman.
Appellants did not provide separate arguments with respect to the
rejection of dependent claims 29 through 32 and 35 as being anticipated by
Baughman. Therefore, they fall together with independent claim 28. See In
re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See
also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
B. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
Now, we turn to the rejection of claims 33 and 34 as being
unpatentable over Baughman in combination with Maggs or Eyler. We note
that Appellants merely reiterate the same arguments addressed above in the
discussion of independent claim 28 and none as to claims 33 and 34 and the
Examiner’s rejection of them. As discussed above and to the extent argued
here, we find that Baughman teaches the claimed fluid handling slot
formation and the orifice layer positioning. In light of these findings, it is
our reasoned conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to combine the teachings of Baughman with Maggs or
Eyler to yield the invention as claimed as reasoned by the Examiner.
Therefore, it follows that the Examiner did not err in rejecting dependent
claims 33 and 34 as being unpatentable over the combination of Baughman
with Maggs or Eyler.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013