Appeal No. 1998-1440 Page 8
Application No. 08/368,452
the art of the scope of the invention. Therefore, we affirm
the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. We
agree with the examiner, (Examiner's Answer at 6), however,
that the rejection could be overcome by amending claim 14 to
specify in pertinent part following limitations: "said dried
polyether polyurethane foam pads are placed in reservoirs of
said ink jet print cartridges ...."
The examiner further rejects claim 16 for the following
reason. "[T]he recitation of 'said process is a step in an
inkjet print cartridge manufacturing process' is indefinite
because the manufacturing process has not been defined."
(Final Rejection at 4.) The appellants argue, "Appellants
have not limited their invention to be germane to a particular
manufacturing process. The invention herein may be used as a
step in any art recognized print cartridge manufacturing
process." (Appeal Br. at 6.)
Claim 16 ultimately depends from claim 4. Claim 4
specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "[a]
process for removing an oily material from polyether
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007