Appeal No. 96-3340
Application 08/363,087
ultimately to the print head or to a scavenger.
Appellants argue the interaction of the scavenger and the free space to draw ink
therefrom into the scavenger, "draw ink quickly" and "draw a substantial quantity of free
ink from an adjacent free space" (See brief at page 7.) We agree with the Examiner that
these arguments go beyond the scope of the language and functionality set forth in claim 1.
(See answer at page 7.) Moreover, the Examiner further states that the saw-tooth
behavior, as argued by appellants, is not set forth in the language of claim 1 or its
dependent claims. We agree with the Examiner. The Examiner states that the
combination of Baker and Kashimura is properly combined. We agree with the Examiner
that the references are properly combined, but the combination of teachings does not
teach or suggest the invention as set forth in claim 1. In other words, the Examiner has not
provided a convincing line of reasoning to modify these teachings to achieve the claimed
relationship between the scavenger and the free space.
Rejections based on § 103 must rest on a factual basis with these facts being
interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art. The
Examiner may not, because of doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation,
unfounded assumption or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007