Appeal No. 1998-2471 Page 12
Application No. 08/222,913
The appellants err in interpreting the scope of the
claims. “[A] transitional term such as ‘comprising’ or ...
‘which comprises,’ does not exclude additional unrecited
elements, or steps (in the case of a method claim) ....”
Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1271,
229 USPQ 805, 812 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, independent claim
12 specifies in pertinent part “[a]n ink jet printer
comprising: means for storing ink, said means including a
single ink permeable element ....”
As admitted by the appellants, Inoue teaches at least one ink
permeable element 8a. Translation, p. 4. The reference’s ink
permeable element would have suggested the ink permeable
element as claimed. Because claim 12 uses the transitional
phrase “comprising,” the claim does not exclude the additional
ink permeable element 8b of the reference.
Second, the appellants argue, “there is no draw out means
attached in a detachable manner, as claimed.” (Appeal Br. at
15.) The examiner replies, “Inoue discloses an ink draw out
means (3a) for attaching to the ink storing means in a
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007