Appeal No. 1998-2471 Page 14
Application No. 08/222,913
Fig. 1), the electrodes, for example, in the area of element 5
are not separated.” (Appeal Br. at 17.) The examiner
replies, “Kern discloses the invention as claimed, i.e.[,]
partition wall or dividing means for separating the plurality
of ink level detection electrodes (6/2 and 6/3).” (Examiner’s
Answer at 17-18.) We agree with the examiner.
The appellants err in interpreting the scope of the
claims. Here, claim 13 specifies in pertinent part “said ink
chamber comprises dividing means therein for separating said
plurality of electrodes from each other.” The appellants
admit, “Kern does show some of the electrodes separated by
element 4 (See Fig. 1) ....” (Appeal Br. at 17.) More
specifically, Kern teaches that electrodes 6/2 and 6/3 are
separated by an interposed wall 4. Fig. 2. The reference’s
wall would have suggested the dividing means as claimed.
Because claim 13 uses the transitional phrase “comprising,”
the claim does not exclude the additional ink electrode 6/1 of
the reference.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007