Appeal No. 1998-2471 Page 9
Application No. 08/222,913
greater than said first value ....” Independent claim 11
similarly specifies in pertinent part the following
limitation: “an ink exhaustion indicating liquid ... having
... an electrical resistance greater than the electrical
resistance of said ink ....” Independent claim 22 similarly
specifies in pertinent part the following limitation: “one of
said liquids being ink having an electrical
resistance of a first value; the other one of said
liquids having an electrical resistance of a second value
which is greater than said first value ....” Giving the
claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, the
limitations recite an indicating liquid with a resistance that
is greater than that of an ink.
The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of
these limitations in the prior art. “A rejection based on
section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis ....” In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967).
“The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the
factual basis for its rejection. It may not ... resort to
speculation, unfounded assumptions[,] or hindsight
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007