Appeal No. 1998-2471 Page 11
Application No. 08/222,913
10.) Nor does the prior art recognize a relation between the
density of liquids and their electrical resistance to support
the examiner’s allegation. APA does not cure these defects.
In view of these omissions the examiner’s allegation amounts
to speculation or an unfounded assumption.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we
reverse the rejection of claims 1-7, 11, and 22-24. Next, we
address the obviousness of claims 12 and 20.
Claims 12 and 20
The appellants make two arguments regarding claims 12 and
20. We address these seriatim. First, the appellants argue,
”In the combined references, a single ink permeable member is
not disclosed. For example, in Inoue, there are two permeable
members.” (Appeal Br. at 15.) The examiner replies, “Inoue
discloses the invention as claimed. The fact that it
discloses additional structure not claimed is irrelevant.”
(Examiner’s Answer at 16.) We agree with the examiner.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007