Appeal No. 1998-1440 Page 6
Application No. 08/368,452
specifies that "said time period is not to exceed about 72
hours." In view of this understanding, we are persuaded that
claims 5-9, 11-13, and 15, read in light of the specification,
reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of the scope of
the invention. We demand no more. Therefore, we reverse the
rejection of claims 5-9, 11-13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
¶ 2.
The examiner further rejects claim 14 for the following
reason.
[I]t is unclear in determine [sic] whether the
recitation of "reservoirs of ink jet print
cartridges" on line 3 of this claim and the one on
line 2 of claim 4, which this claim is indirectly
depended therefrom, are one in the same; if so, the
second and any subsequent occurrence should begin
with the word "said" ....
(Final Rejection at 4.) The appellants argue that they have
amended the claims "in order to fully comply with the
Examiner's suggestions ...." (Appeal Br. at 6.)
“‘[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every
application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007