Appeal No. 1999-1577
Application No. 08/537,060
has no need for the crossflow channels claimed nor does
Ishinaga disclose such crossflow channels. Moreover, element
20 of Ishinaga, on which the examiner relies, is a diverging
communication port of the ink supply passage 18. While the
element certainly has a slope to it, as shown in Ishinaga’s
Figure 2, Ishinaga has no crossflow component. Accordingly,
it is beyond reason to conclude that this sloped element of
Ishinaga would, in any way, suggest to the artisan a
downwardly sloped crossflow channel or would suggest any
modification to any crossflow channel of Baker.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6 and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 and under obviousness-type double patenting is
reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LANCE LEONARD BARRY ) APPEALS
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007