Appeal No. 1998-1440 Page 9
Application No. 08/368,452
polyurethane foam ink pads ...." Claim 16 further specifies
the following limitations: "[a] process for removing oily
material from polyether polyurethane foam ink pads in
accordance with claim 4 wherein said process is a step in an
inkjet print cartridge manufacturing process."
The examiner fails to show that claim 16 is indefinite.
To the contrary, when read in light of the specification, one
skilled in the art would understand that the claim further
specifies that the removing of oily material specified in
claim 4 is a step in a process for manufacturing an inkjet
print cartridge. In view of this understanding, we are
persuaded that claim 16, read in light of the specification,
reasonably apprises those skilled in the art of the scope of
the invention. We demand no more. Therefore, we reverse the
rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. Next, we
address the obviousness rejection of claims 4-16.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 4-16
We begin by noting the following principles from
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007