Ex Parte Mrvos et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 25, 2003

09100538 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 25, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.

Paper No. 32

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte JAMES MICHAEL MRVOS
and
ASHOK MURTHY
__________

Appeal No. 2002-0643
Application No. 09/100,538
___________

ON BRIEF
___________

Before KIMLIN, LIEBERMAN, and DELMENDO, Administrative Patent
Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
(2003) from the examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3
through 5, 12, 14 through 16, and 23 through 28 (final office
action, paper 27), which are all the claims pending in the
above-identified application.

Appeal No. 2002-0643
Application No. 09/100,538

2
The subject matter on appeal relates to a heater chip
module (claims 1 and 3-5), a flexible circuit/heater chip module
assembly (claims 12, 14-16, and 23-25), and an ink jet print
cartridge (claims 26-28). According to the appellants (appeal
brief filed Jul. 27, 2001, paper 29, page 2), the claimed heater
chip module is mounted in a cavity of a single layer metal
(i.e., steel, aluminum, copper, zinc, nickel, and alloys
thereof) substrate, which provides a dissipation path for heat
generated by the heater chip. Further details of this appealed
subject matter are recited in representative claim 1 reproduced
below:
1. A heater chip module comprising:
a rigid carrier secured to a container for
receiving ink and including a substantially rigid,
single layer metal support section, said metal being
selected from the group consisting of steel, aluminum,
copper, zinc, nickel and alloys thereof;
a heater chip within an inner cavity formed
within said metal support section and coupled to said
metal support section at the bottom of said cavity,
said metal support section including at least one
passage which defines a path for ink to travel from
the container to said inner cavity of said heater
chip; and
a nozzle plate coupled to said heater chip,
wherein said carrier provides a dissipation path for
heat generated by said heater chip.

Appeal No. 2002-0643
Application No. 09/100,538

3
The examiner relies on the following prior art references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Hanson 4,635,073 Jan. 6, 1987

Eldridge et al. 4,791,440 Dec. 13, 1988
(Eldridge)1

Komuro et al. 4,881,318 Nov. 21, 1989
(Komuro)

Braun 4,942,408 Jul. 17, 1990

Fukuda et al. 5,066,964 Nov. 19, 1991
(Fukuda)

Oda et al. 5,552,816 Sep. 3, 1996
(Oda)

The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as follows:
I. claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 23, 26, and 27 as
unpatentable over Braun, Oda, and Fukuda (answer, page
3);
II. claims 5, 16, 21, and 28 as unpatentable over Braun,
Oda, Fukuda, and Eldridge (id. at page 5);
III. claim 24 as unpatentable over Braun, Oda, Fukuda, and
Komuro (id.); and

1 Eldridge is not listed in the “Prior Art of Record”
section of the answer (examiner’s answer mailed Sep. 12, 2001,
paper 30, pp. 2-3) but is relied upon as evidence in a rejection
(p. 5).

Appeal No. 2002-0643
Application No. 09/100,538

4
IV. claim 25 as unpatentable over Braun, Oda, Fukuda, and
Hanson (id.).
We affirm these rejections.2
Braun describes a print/cartridge construction including a
fluid block 50 (i.e., a rigid carrier) that is secured to a
container for receiving ink, a drop ejection chip 60 having
resistive heater elements 64 disposed within a recess of the
fluid block 50 (i.e., a heater chip within an inner cavity of
the fluid block 50), and an orifice plate 80 (i.e., nozzle
plate). (Figures 1 and 3A-3E; column 1, line 59 to column 2,
line 18; column 3, line 58 to column 4, line 29.) Braun further
suggests that a heat sink element may be disposed between the
chip and the fluid block component to control the chip substrate
temperature. (Column 4, lines 35-41.)
Thus, Braun differs from the subject matter of appealed
claim 1 in that it does not disclose the use of a metal such as
steel, aluminum, copper, zinc, nickel, or alloys thereof as the
material for constructing the heat sink element.

2 The appellants state that “[a]ll of the pending claims
are deemed for purposes of this appeal to stand and [sic, or]
fall with claim 1” and, in fact, rely on the same arguments for
all four grounds of rejection. (Appeal brief, pp. 4-5.) Under
these circumstances, we confine our discussion to the invention
recited in appealed claim 1. 37 CFR §§ 1.192(a), c(7) and c(8)
(1995, 1997).

Appeal No. 2002-0643
Application No. 09/100,538

5
To dissipate heat caused by the ejection-energy generating
element, Fukuda teaches the use of a heat-capacity member (e.g.,
a metal having a high thermal conductivity such as copper,
aluminum, bronze, beryllium, nickel, platinum, stainless steel,
and steel) in contact with the heat generating substrate.
(Column 1, lines 10-54; column 4, lines 51-53; column 6, lines
8-25.)
Given these prior art disclosures, we are in complete
agreement with the examiner’s determination that the subject
matter of appealed claim 1 would have been obvious to a person
having ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Specifically, it is our judgment that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been led to combine the teachings of
these references by modifying Braun’s product to include
Fukuda’s heat capacity member (i.e., a heat sink element) made
from a material such as steel, stainless steel, aluminum,
copper, or nickel in order to avoid the problems associated with
heat generated by the heater chip.
The appellants’ arguments (appeal brief, pages 4-5)
incorrectly focus on the teachings of Oda. We note, however,
that Oda’s teachings are not necessary to support the examiner’s
rejection of appealed claim 1.
Appeal No. 2002-0643
Application No. 09/100,538

6
Because the appellants have failed to rebut the examiner’s
prima facie case of obviousness, we affirm the examiner’s
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of: (i) claims 1, 3, 4, 12,
14, 15, 23, 26, and 27 as unpatentable over Braun, Oda, and
Fukuda; (ii) claims 5, 16, 21, and 28 as unpatentable over
Braun, Oda, Fukuda, and Eldridge; (iii) claim 24 as unpatentable
over Braun, Oda, Fukuda, and Komuro; and (iv) claim 25 as
unpatentable over Braun, Oda, Fukuda, and Hanson.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.

Appeal No. 2002-0643
Application No. 09/100,538

7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

Edward C. Kimlin )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Paul Lieberman )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Romulo H. Delmendo )
Administrative Patent Judge )

RHD/kis
Appeal No. 2002-0643
Application No. 09/100,538

8
JOHN J MCARDLE JR
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL INC
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW DEPARTMENT
740 NEW CIRCLE ROAD N W
LEXINGTON KY 40550