Appeal No. 2000-0722
Application No. 08/646,399
arrow “H” in Figures 1 and 3. We agree with appellant. Furthermore, the depth dimension
is also labeled in Figures 1 and 3 as “d” and defined and described in the specification at
pages 8-12. Therefore, we find that appellant has particularly pointed out and distinctly
claimed the invention, and we will not sustain the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
35 U.S.C. § 102
The examiner maintains that Takeshima discloses an ink channel with a depth direction
in which an expansible member acts to exert a force on ink in the chamber as shown in
Figure 2(a). The examiner maintains that the depth of a second portion of the ink channel
1
is larger than the depth of a first portion. (See answer at page 4.) The examiner does not
specifically identify that “S2" in Figure 2(a) is the second portion, but appellant’s
arguments are directed to portion S2 as the larger portion.
Appellant argues that the portion S2 is a width and not a depth in a direction in which
the expansible member acts on the ink in the ink channel. We agree with appellant. (See
brief at page 7.) The examiner maintains that the area indicated by S2 is a depth and
relies upon the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. (See answer at page
8.) As discussed above, we find the relative dimensions and directions to be clear in the
We note that the statement of the rejection ends with “and .” but appears to be a complete1
sentence otherwise. Therefore, we find that this is the examiner’s complete statement of the grounds of the
rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007