Appeal No. 1999-1652 Page 9
Application No. 08/758,369
persuaded that teachings from the prior art would have
suggested the combination of Tamura and Barbero nor the
limitations of an “ink 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 through said ink inlet port and for
receiving the liquid ink from said ink chamber through said
ink outlet port." Therefore, we reverse the rejection of
claims 1-4 as being obvious over Tamura in view of Barbero.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-4 under § 103(a) is
reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007