Appeal No. 1998-2462
Application No. 08/548,696
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 26,
mailed September 15, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellant's
Brief (Paper No. 25, filed June 30, 1997) and Reply Brief
(Paper No. 27, filed October 20, 1997) for appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 5
through 8.
The examiner asserts (Answer, page 5) that Ausnit
discloses all claim limitations except an array of barbed
members and socket members and coupling the bag to a reservoir
of an ink-jet pen and moving the ink into the reservoir. The
examiner turns to Larkin for the array of barbed members and
socket members "for providing a positive interlocking
mechanism to a dispensing container," and to Causley "for . .
. providing a flexible ink container having a collapsible
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007