Appeal No. 1999-1652 Page 5
Application No. 08/758,369
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed
subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the
art." In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
With these principles in mind, we consider the examiner's
rejection and the appellants' arguments.
The examiner asserts, "Tamara discloses ... ink chamber R
having a front end, a rear end, an ink inlet port disposed
adjacent said rear end, an outlet port disposed adjacent said
front end and an ink ejecting slit P extending along the front
end of said ink chamber R ...." (Examiner's Answer at 3.)
The “[a]ppellants contend that a claimed feature (the ink
outlet port) is completely missing from Tamura's printing head
33.” (Reply Br. at 4.)
Here, claims 1-4 specify in pertinent part the following
limitations.
[I]nk chamber having a front end, a rear end, an ink
inlet port disposed adjacent said rear end, an ink
outlet port disposed adjacent said front end, and an
ink ejecting slit extending along the front end of
said ink chamber ... and an ink reservoir, disposed
above said ink chamber and connected to said ink
inlet port and said ink outlet port, for providing
the liquid ink by gravity to said ink chamber
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007