Ex Parte Ahne et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 30, 2010

10883426 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ADAM JUDE AHNE, GEORGE K. PARISH,
and
KRISTI M. ROWE
____________

Appeal 2009-002743
Application 10/883,426
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: April 30, 2010
____________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-14 and 22-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2009-002743
Application 10/883,426

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is a ground structure and method for a
temperature sensing resistor used in an inkjet printhead (Spec. ¶ [0004]).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.

Claim 1. An inkjet printhead comprising:

a temperature sensing resistor configured to have a low
voltage end; and

a ground structure at least partially enclosing the temperature
sensing resistor and coupled to the temperature sensing
resistor at the low voltage end.

REFERENCES
El Haten US 5,144,341 Sep. 1, 1992
Ishinaga US 5,175,565 Dec. 29, 1992
Kneezel US 5,881,451 Mar. 16, 1999
Kamiyama US 5,943,069 Aug. 24, 1999
Colinge US 6,391,752 B1 May 21, 2002

The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11, 22, 23, and 25 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of Kamiyama.
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 12, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Kamiyama and El Haten.
The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Kamiyama and Ishinaga.
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 13, 24, and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kamiyama and Kneezel.

Appeal 2009-002743
Application 10/883,426

3
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Kamiyama and Colinge.
Appellants contend Kamiyama does not teach or suggest a ground
structure at least partially enclosing a temperature sensing resistor as
claimed (App. Br. 8). Appellants’ further contend none of the remaining
cited references cures the deficiencies of Kamiyama (See generally App. Br.
13, 17, 21, and 24).

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11, 22, 23, and 25 as a group, and
specifically address independent claims 1, 9, and 22 (App. Br. 6-7).
Appellants contend Kamiyama monitors the resistance of discharge resistors
for selecting an appropriate voltage to output a consistent volume of ink for
each recording head (App. Br. 7). However, Appellants assert, Kamiyama
fails to teach or suggest an inkjet print head that has a ground structure at
least partially enclosing a temperature sensing resistor (App. Br. 8). Thus,
we interpret Appellants argument to be Kamiyama does not teach 1) a
ground structure and 2) a ground structure partially enclosing the
temperature sensing resistor.
The Examiner asserts the claim language “at least partially enclosing”
can be broadly interpreted to read that the ground structure does not need to
be fully enclosed or located around or on all sides of the temperature sensor
(Ans. 7) and that a ground structure located “nearby along at least one side
of the temperature sensor” anticipates the claimed ground structure (id.).
Specifically, the Examiner cites Figure 6 of Kamiyama as showing a ground
structure that is “defined by a conductive region including the blank area
Appeal 2009-002743
Application 10/883,426

4
connected between the terminal 105b and the temperature sensor 103
(defining the low voltage end because the terminal 105b is connected to
ground), the shaded area [109], and the blank area connecting the shaded
area and the terminal 105a connected to ground.” Id. The Examiner found
that this conductive region (i.e., element 109 and both blank areas at either
side of element 109) corresponds to the claimed ground structure because
this conductive region is located “nearby along” at least one longitudinal
side of a temperature sensor (including elements 102, 131, and 103). (Ans.
7)
The Examiner’s interpretation of the term “at least partially
enclosing” is unreasonably broad. The elements relied on by the Examiner
as forming the recited “ground structure” are, as the Examiner found,
“nearby along” at least one longitudinal side of the temperature sensor (Ans.
7). “Nearby along” is not the same as partially enclosing. Because the
elements relied on by the Examiner in Kamiyama as forming the recited
“ground structure” do not partially enclose the temperature sensor,
Appellants’ claims do not read on Kamiyama. Thus, assuming for the sake
of argument that the shaded area 109 and the two blank areas relied on by
the Examiner can accurately be characterized as a “ground structure,” that
ground structure does not at least partially enclose the temperature sensor, as
claimed. This is because the recited structure does not partially surround the
temperature sensor but rather lies along a single side.
Therefore, there is nothing in Figure 6 or Kamiyama generally that
teaches a ground structure at least partially enclosing a temperature sensing
resistor, as recited in claims 1, 9, and 22. Because claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 23, and
25, depend therefrom, Kamiyama also does not anticipate these claims.
Appeal 2009-002743
Application 10/883,426

5
With respect to the remaining rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
Examiner relied on Kamiyama in combination with each of El Haten,
Ishinaga, Kneezel, and Colinge. However, claims 4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 24, 26,
and 27 are not obvious over the collective teachings of these references,
because none of these references cures the deficiencies of Kamiyama.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-14 and 22-27 is reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW DEPARTMENT
740 WEST NEW CIRCLE ROAD
BLDG. 082-1
LEXINGTON, KY 40550-0999