Appeal No. 1998-2418
Application No. 08/686,883
regard to claim 34 the additional ink roller features are
clearly shown in figures 8 and 9. Accordingly, we find
appellant's disclosed prior art describes the claimed features
and we will sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 31 and
32 even though reliance on Jones and Burtis (and Lane) is not
necessary. See In re Kronig 539 F.2d 1300, 1303, 190 USPQ
425, 427 (CCPA 1976).
Turning now to claim 33, appellant argues "it defines
that the enlarged portion is substantially less than the
elongate portion. Again, there is no teaching of such a
combination of structure" (brief, page 19). We do not find
this feature to be described in appellant's disclosed prior
art nor do we find a suggestion of this modification in Lane
or Burtis. While both Lane and Burtis disclose enlarged
container portions, in our view the combination of this
feature with appellant's disclosed prior art would appear to
be improper hindsight. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 33.
Appellant's claim 35 includes, inter-alia, "an ink roller
container . . . having an enlarged portion frictionally
releasably held in the central opening, the container having
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007