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.)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007