Appeal No. 97-2943
Application No. 08/319,174
resulting combined apparatus would be “inoperable” because the
two mechanisms of Nozawa and Kimura “could not fit in one
printer.” A finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 does
not require a bodily incorporation of elements of the combined
references, as appellants’ argument might suggest, but,
rather, only that the references would have suggested to the
artisan to do what appellants have done.
Appellants also contend that “important claimed
limitations, including nozzle positions and resilient seals,
are not, even remotely, suggested” [principal brief-page 7].
However, the examiner has clearly explained how these
limitations are, indeed suggested, pointing to the O-ring seal
17 of Kimura as the claimed “resilient seal,” and employing
Takahashi’s teaching of a vertical nozzle position to provide
for such an orientation of the nozzle. Thus, the examiner has
clearly indicated where, in the references, these limitations
are suggested. The burden then shifts to appellants to now
come forth with evidence or arguments showing why these
features of the references do not satisfy the claimed
elements. The burden has not been met by appellants by a
bald, unsubstantiated assertion that “important claimed
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007