Appeal No. 2001-0073
Application 08/966,894
McAffer which is not a tubing coupler or an in-line coupler. It
appears that the main reason for using McAffer is because it
mentions "luer-lock" couplings, as disclosed by appellants,
rather than because of any teachings in McAffer itself. This
suggests the rejection is based on hindsight.
In addition, the examiner has not stated the motivation for
attaching the connecting tube to the second fitting so that it
extends through the opening and is removed from the interior
region when the second fitting is not mated to the first fitting.
Absent some further modification, it must be assumed that the
cannula 23 in McAffer corresponds to the claimed connecting tube,
is fixed to the first fitting, and remains in the cartridge.
For the reasons stated above, we find that the examiner has
not factually established motivation for the proposed
modifications and, thus, has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness. Nevertheless, this is not the sole reason
why the rejection must be reversed.
(3)
Appellants argue that the combination of McAffer and
Erickson does not suggest the invention (Br10-13). It is argued
that the claims require that the cartridge contains no ink supply
tubing, while both McAffer and Erickson include some form of
supply tube. In particular, the coupler in McAffer has an
integral cannula 23 which extends downward into the fluid
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007