Appeal No. 1998-2471 Page 20
Application No. 08/222,913
purpose of protecting the electrode.” (Examiner’s Answer at
21.) The appellants respond that the claim “is directed to a
waterproofing coating for a specific purpose in the
combination which is not at all suggested by the references
nor would this purpose (result) be obvious or expected by one
skilled in the art.” (Reply Br. at 7.) We agree with the
examiner.
Claim 25 specifies in pertinent part that “the
cylindrical member has a waterproof coating.” Murai teaches
that the tip of the electrode 42 “may be provided with water-
repellent treatment, in order to promptly dissipate ink.”
Col. 3, ll. 20-22. The teaching would have suggested applying
a water-repellent treatment to the reference’s insulating
member 44 in order to promptly dissipate ink therefrom.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we affirm the
rejection of claim 25.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007