Appeal No. 1999-1889 Page 14
Application No. 08/366,988
Because employing the air flow arrangement shown in
Figure 6 in the ink container shown in Figure 43 would have
enabled ink supply to be carried out with small pressure loss
and a high speed printing operation to be carried out with
stability, we are persuaded that the teachings from the
applied prior art would have suggested the limitations of “the
cartridge body having a communication opening through one side
of the cartridge body that is in communication with the first
material for discharging the ink from the first material and
the cartridge body and a venting hole in the one side of the
cartridge body for balancing pressure inside and outside of
the cartridge body” and “the cartridge body having a
communication opening through one side of the cartridge body
that is in communication with an opposite side of the first
material from the one side of the first material for
discharging the ink from the first material and the cartridge
body and a venting hole for balancing pressure inside and
outside of the cartridge body ... wherein the venting hole is
in the one side of the cartridge body.” Therefore, we affirm
the rejection of representative claim 1 and of claims 3 and
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007