Appeal No. 2001-0073
Application 08/966,894
McAffer is analogous prior art. The particular problem with
which the inventors were involved was how to couple a tube to an
ink jet cartridge, not the non-specific overall "problem of
excess waste, high manufacturing cost, and the lack of user
friendliness of prior art large volume ink supply systems and
their components" (Br7-8). McAffer is reasonably pertinent to
the problem facing the inventors, as properly defined.
(2)
The rejection states (FR3):
Because luer-lock coupler was art-recognized equivalents for
transferring fluid at the time the invention was made, one
of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
substitute the one of Erickson for the one of McAffer et al
for the purpose of facilitating fluid transfer.
Appellants argue that there is no suggestion or motivation
to combine McAffer with Erickson (Br9-10). It is argued that the
examiner does not state what structures of Erickson this supposed
equivalent is being substituted for (Br9), although appellants
presume it is the tubing coupler (Br10). Appellants state that
the issue is obviousness, not equivalence (Br10). It is argued
that there is no suggestion in McAffer to use fittings, luer-lock
or otherwise, which are integral to the top panel of an ink-jet
cartridge or that the coupler could be used in any other field or
application (Br9). Appellant argues that Erickson does not cure
this deficiency because it has no fitting as part of the
cartridge top panel, the cartridge has some type of permanently
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007