Appeal No. 1999-1577
Application No. 08/537,060
We also will not sustain this rejection since the
examiner’s reasoning is similar to the reasoning applied in
the obviousness-type double patenting rejection. That is,
reliance is placed on Baker for the teaching of exit ports
"generally centrally located in said bottom entirely under
said second chamber and spaced from all areas under said first
chamber and under said third chamber," as claimed. For the
reasons supra, we do not agree that Baker suggests this
claimed limitation.
The examiner also reasons, in applying Baker in both
rejections, that it would have been obvious to modify the exit
ports of Baker to locate entirely under the second chamber for
the purpose of providing ink flow during recording "since
applicant has not disclosed that having the ports entirely
under the second chamber solves any stated problem or is for
any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would
perform equally well with the ports [sic, ports’] position
taught" by Baker and that "rearranging parts of an invention
involves only routine skill in the art." [Answer, page 6]
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007