Appeal No. 97-2943
Application No. 08/319,174
nothing in the claim language which precludes a method for
purging an already manufactured and deployed ink jet recording
apparatus.
At page 6 of the principal brief, appellants contend that
Kimura does “not...describe a process for priming a
multichamber ink jet print head via the steps set out in the
claimed invention.” However, it would appear that Kimura’s
air pump for applying pressure would act to prime an ink jet
head of the type claimed. As far as not performing the steps
set out in the claimed invention, appellants are not specific
as to what steps, exactly, are not taught or suggested.
Appellants describe Takahashi as “inadequate” [top of
page 7-principal brief] and state that it “does not relate at
all to the subject matter as claimed.” Again, appellants have
failed to point to anything specific about the claims to show
that Takahashi “does not relate.” Takahashi is clearly
directed to subject matter which those skilled in the art
would have been familiar with, viz., ink jet printers, and
clearly relates to the instant claimed subject matter.
In arguing that the references are not combinable
[principal brief-page 7], appellants contend that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007