Appeal No. 1999-1889 Page 17
Application No. 08/366,988
and second materials extending over all of only the one side
of the first material ....” Therefore, we affirm the
rejection of claim 13 and of claims 14-16 and 23, which fall
therewith.
As explained regarding the second argument, the
limitations of claim 5 have been found obvious. Therefore, we
affirm the rejection of representative claim 5 and of claims
17 and 25, which fall therewith. We proceed to claims 6, 18-
20, 22, 24, and 26.
II. Claims 6, 18-20, 22, 24, and 26
The appellants argue, “[i]f Figs. 35 to 38, 42 and 43 of
the Koitabashi, et al. patent are thought to suggest the two
materials, the rejection still fails because the walls around
neither are fully sealed.” (Appeal Br. at 14.) The examiner
responds, “having the vent hole and the communication opening
on the same side of the cartridge body would result in the
walls surrounding the second material being fully sealed.”
(Examiner’s Answer at 4.)
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007