Appeal No. 1998-2471 Page 8
Application No. 08/222,913
Regarding claims 1-7, the appellants argue, “Italiano ...
does not disclose or suggest the specific resistance
limitation as claimed.” (Appeal Br. at 8.) Regarding claim
11, the appellants similarly argue that the references do not
suggest that “the ink and the ink exhausting indicating liquid
have a specific electrical resistance.” (Id. at 13.)
Regarding claims 22-24, the appellants similarly argue, “these
claims require ... that the liquids ... have different
resistance values .... As stated above, the combination of
Italiano and the []APA does not disclose this structure.”
(Id.) The examiner replies, “the resistance limitation is ...
well met by Italiano teaching an oil-based liquid floating on
top of the ink, wherein the liquid and the ink each inherently
possesses electrical resistance of such claimed relationship
in order for the liquid to float on top of the ink.”
(Examiner’s Answer at 12.) We agree with the appellants.
Independent claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the
following limitation: “ink ... having an electrical resistance
of a first value ... and an ink exhaustion indicating liquid
having an electrical resistance of a second value which is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007