Appeal No. 1998-2114
Application No. 08/491,286
Claims 1 through 11 and 13 through 15 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Permut.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Christie in view of Jenkins.
Claims 12 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Permut in view of Jenkins.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper nos. 11, 13 and
19) and the answers (paper nos. 12 and 18) for the respective
positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
The obviousness rejections of claims 1 through 16 are
reversed.
In the statement of the rejection of claim 1, the
examiner indicates (answer, page 5) that:
The main difference between the claimed invention
and Christie et al[.] is that the claims set forth a
side opening and the patent teaches a rear opening.
This difference would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill since the cartridge of
Christie et al[.] passes through the claimed
orientation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to have provided the rear opening of Christie et
al[.] on a side portion of the housing. The
motivation would have been: providing the opening on
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007