Ex parte BEESON - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1998-2462                                                        
          Application No. 08/548,696                                                  


               5.   A method of compacting a flexible ink supply                      
          container that has opposing interior surfaces, the method                   
          comprising the steps of:                                                    
               coupling the container to a reservoir of an ink-jet pen;               
               moving ink from the container to the coupled reservoir;                
               moving the opposing interior surfaces toward one another;              
          and                                                                         
               securing together the opposing interior surfaces thereby               
          to prevent the opposing interior surfaces from thereafter                   
          moving apart.                                                               
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Larkin                        3,260,412                Jul. 12,             
          1966                                                                        
          Ausnit                        4,196,030                Apr. 01,             
          1980                                                                        
          Causley et al. (Causley)           4,551,734                Nov.            
          05, 1985                                                                    
          Bauman                        5,323,932                Jun. 28,             
          1994                                                                        
               Claims 5 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103                
          as being unpatentable over Ausnit in view of Larkin and                     
          Causley.                                                                    
               Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                 
          unpatentable over Ausnit in view of Larkin, Causley, and                    
          Bauman.                                                                     

                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007