Appeal No. 2001-0078
Application No. 08/892,131
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an essential part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to independent claims 1 and 13, Appellant’s
arguments in response to the obviousness rejection assert a
failure of the Examiner to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness since all of the claim limitations are not taught or
suggested by the applied Clark or Barinaga references. In
particular, Appellant asserts (Brief, page 7; Reply brief, page
2) that Barinaga does not make up for the deficiency of Clark in
disclosing an ink pouch frame with outwardly extending rib
portions which extend into recesses in an outer shell as claimed.
After careful review of the applied Barinaga reference,
relied on by the Examiner as providing a teaching of the claimed
rib and shell recess feature, we are in agreement with
Appellant’s position as stated in the Briefs. Our interpretation
of Barinaga coincides with that of Appellant, i.e., to whatever
extent Barinaga’s frame 46 could be interpreted as containing a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007