Appeal No. 1999-1889 Page 18
Application No. 08/366,988
Claims 6, 18-20, 22, 24, and 26 specify in pertinent part
the following limitations: “walls of the cartridge body around
the second material are fully sealed.” Accordingly, the
limitations require inter alia that the walls of the cartridge
body surrounding the second density are sealed fully.
The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of
the limitations in the applied prior art. "’A prima facie
case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the
prior art 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)).
Here, the walls of the ink container surrounding
Koitabashi’s minimum compression ratio portion A434 are not
sealed fully. To the contrary, the bottom of the minimum
compression ratio portion abuts a “small compression ratio
portion (intermediate capillary force) A433 at the bottom
portion of the ink chamber 2006.” P. 19, ll. 48-49. Figure
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007