Appeal No. 1998-2471 Page 17
Application No. 08/222,913
Regarding claim 18, the appellants argue, “The structure
of claim 18 is not suggested by the references in the context
claimed.” (Appeal Br. at 15.) The examiner replies, “Heinzl
discloses an ink-jet printer comprising an ink chamber (1)
having an upward convex cross sectional configuration.”
(Examiner’s Answer at 17.) We agree with the examiner.
Claim 18 specifies in pertinent part an “ink chamber
[that] has an upward convex cross sectional configuration.”
Heinzl teaches an ink vessel 1. Col. 2, ll. 45-46. Figure 1
shows that the ink vessel has an upward convex cross sectional
configuration. The reference’s convex configuration would
have suggested the upward convex cross sectional configuration
as claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we affirm the
rejection of claim 18. Next, we address the obviousness of
claim 19.
Claim 19
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007