Appeal No. 96-3340
Application 08/363,087
between the scavenger member and the free space." Appellants argue that Baker does
not, as asserted by the Examiner, teach the use of a scavenger member with a higher
capillary force than the other ink storage medium. We agree with appellants. Baker
merely teaches the use of a screen to filter particles and air bubbles. The Examiner has
asserted in the alternative that Kashimura teaches the use of a scavenger member as
claimed. (See answer at page 6.) We agree with the Examiner. On the other hand,
appellants argue that Kashimura does not teach a free space having the claimed
relationship to the size of the scavenger member. (See brief at page 6.) We agree with
appellants. From a review of the specification and drawings of Kashimura, it is not clear
that there is any available free space inside the housing except the nominal spaces
surrounding the mediums. It would be mere speculation on our part to reach a conclusion
as to the amount of available free space and whether it is in communication with the
scavenger member so that ink would be "flowable between the scavenger member and the
free space." Furthermore, Baker states that the "spacing
therebetween beneath the foam increases the compression of the foam in the areas above
the three filters. This fact in turn increases the capillarity of the foam in the region thereof
above these three filters and thus reduces the possibility of air bubbles." (See column 3,
lines 40-44). Therefore, Baker is silent as to the flow of ink to or from the free space
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007