Appeal No. 1999-1652 Page 8
Application No. 08/758,369
combination that was made by the applicant.” Id. 55 USPQ2d at
1316 (citing In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1343, 48 USPQ2d 1635,
1637 (Fed. Cir. 1998);
In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed.
Cir. 1984).
Here, although Tamura discloses an ink keeper connected
to an ink passage via an ink inlet port therein and Barbero
discloses an ink reservoir connected to an ink container by an
ink discharge port therein, the examiner fails to allege, let
alone show, some motivation, suggestion, or teaching of the
desirability of employing Barbero’s ink discharge port in
Tamura’s ink passage. The examiner’s reason for repositioning
Tamura’s ink inlet port, viz., to “produce[] indelible signs
which are immediately dry and are formed of a uniform layer of
ink[,]” (Examiner’s Answer at 4), moreover, would not result
from using Barbero’s ink discharge port in Tamura’s ink
passage.
Because Tamura lacks an ink outlet port, and there is no
evidence that Barbero’s ink discharge port would have been
desirable in the former reference’s ink passage, we are not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007