Ex parte BRANDON et al. - Page 4

            Appeal No. 1998-1595                                                                              
            Application No. 08/439,912                                                                        

            Figs.  5-8.”  Therefore, we agree with the examiner that the admitted prior art teaches the       
            structure of ink cartridge as recited in claim 21, except for the claimed feature that the        
            flexible films are adhesively bonded to the first and second bonding surfaces.  We agree          
            with the examiner that Scheffelin teaches both the use of dry bonding with adhesive and           
            hot melt bonding along with the use of various other methods.  (See Scheffelin at columns         
            5 and 6.)                                                                                         
                   Appellants and the examiner are in dispute over the claim limitation relating to “a        
            rigid monolithic frame.”   Appellants argue that the examiner has not interpreted the claim       
            properly in view of the definition recited in the specification at page 6.  We note that this     
            definition was amended by appellants in paper number 7, filed March 25, 1997.  The                
            originally filed text stated that “[t]he rigid frame 50 is a monolithic structure formed by       
            plastic injection molding in a single molding step so as to have the configuration shown in       
            figure 2.”  Appellants amended the text at page 6 to further recite that “[t]he term ‘monolithic  
            structure’ as used herein means a structure that is massively solid and uniform.  That is, it     
            consists of a single mass or piece and is substantially uniform in content, like an object        
            obtained by injection molding.”  The examiner has not questioned the further refinement of        
            the term “monolithic” by appellants.  The examiner maintains that the admitted prior art          
            teaches a monolithic frame as recited in the amended definition in the specification.  (See       
            answer at page 6.)                                                                                


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007