Appeal No. 2001-0073
Application 08/966,894
of whether the mating fitting is attached. This does not satisfy
the limitation that "said connecting tube is completely removed
from said interior region" (claim 22) when the second fitting is
not mated to the first fitting, or the limitation that "said
interior region is devoid of . . . ink supply tubing" (claim 26).
The examiner further states that the "Erickson ink supply
tube would be removed from the cartridge when it is rearranged to
attached with the coupler that is not part of the cartridge
similarly to McAffer as explained above" (EA6). The examiner
states that the end product of Erickson, McAffer, and appellants
are all the same because they have a tube portion in the
reservoir of the cartridge (EA7).
As previously discussed, the examiner has not provided any
motivation for modifying the combination of McAffer and Erickson
to put the connecting tube on the coupler that is not part of the
cartridge. The tube in Erickson is permanently glued to the ink
jet cartridge and the adaptor in McAffer has a cannula
permanently attached to the fitting which mounts on the vial.
Reliance on per se rules, such as mere rearrangement of parts, is
not persuasive of obviousness. The fact that Erickson, McAffer,
and appellants may all have a tube portion extending into the
container does not address the obviousness of the differences in
structure that lead to that final result.
- 12 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007