Appeal No. 96-2416
Application 08/206,447
modify Cruz-Uribe in view of Osaki and Debare in order to arrive
at the subject matter of the claims. Second, we do not believe
that the pressure regulator 36 of Cruz-Uribe can be fairly
equated to appellants’ accumulator, notwithstanding that each may
be located in the same general position in an ink jet ink supply
system and that each may operate in some fashion to control an
ink supply pump. Appellants’ accumulator is for the purpose of
providing a pressurized supply of ink to the printhead. The
examiner’s view to the contrary notwithstanding, the pressure
transducer 36 to Cruz-Uribe is not for this purpose. Further,
appellants’ accumulator periodically operates the pump to
replenish the ink in the accumulator. In contrast, Cruz-Uribe’s
pressure transducer 36 monitors and regulates the operation of
what appears to be a continuously operating pump. Third, while
the accumulator 22, 24 of Osaki and the appellants’ accumulator
are structurally similar in several respects, in contrast to
appellants’ accumulator the accumulator of Osaki is not in any
fashion operatively connected to the pump 10 to directly control
its operation. Fourth, assuming arguendo that Debare is
analogous prior art, we are in accord with appellants that4
4We appreciate that appellants do not concede this point.
See, for example, pages 16-17 of the main brief.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007