Appeal No. 1998-2471 Page 19
Application No. 08/222,913
broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites two
electrodes, one of which is disposed in a larger area of the
ink chamber than the other.
The appellants have not shown error in the examiner’s
aforementioned interpretation of a small section above
Heinzl’s electrode 4 as an upper space area and a larger
section above the reference’s electrode 3 as a lower space
area to meet the limitation as claimed. For the foregoing
reasons, the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 19.
Next and last, we address the obviousness of claim 25.
Claim 25
Regarding claim 25, the appellants argue, “Claim 25 is
not suggested by the references applied.” (Appeal Br. at 19.)
The examiner replies, “it would have been obvious ... that the
cylindrical member already contains a waterproof coating
thereon or to incorporate a waterproof coating thereon for the
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007