Appeal No. 2001-0073
Application 08/966,894
skill in the tubing connector art that a connector can be located
either in-line, as shown in Erickson, or on the container to
which the tubing goes, so as to make the use of either location
obvious, the examiner has presented no evidence of this fact (a
simple catalog page showing both types of connectors as
alternative would have been sufficient). Thus, the examiner has
failed to establish motivation for the proposed modification. We
will not base a rejection on our own knowledge. See In re Zurko,
258 F.3d 1379, 1386, 59 USPQ2d 1693, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("With
respect to core factual findings in a determination of
patentability, however, the Board cannot simply reach conclusions
based on its own understanding or experience -- or on its
assessment of what would be basic knowledge or common sense.").
We do not agree with the examiner's reasoning that the
fitting 66 in Erickson is part of the cartridge top panel via
tube 62 because this distorts the teachings of Erickson.
Moreover, the tube 62 is permanently part of the cartridge and
violates the limitations of claims 22 and 26 that the interior of
the cartridge is devoid of ink supply tubing when the second
fitting is not mated with the cartridge fitting.
While we agree that one skilled in the art would have known
to use known alternative fittings to the in-line seal 66 of
Erickson, the examiner has not explained why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to use the coupler in
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007