Appeal No. 2001-1766
Application 08/891,884
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before
us, and we will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1
through 10.
Clark uses a check valve 42 in a liquid containment and
dispensing device (Figure 4) to provide for one-way flow of ink.
The examiner acknowledges (answer, page 7) that Clark does not
disclose that “no portion of the check valve is heated staked
[sic, heat-staked] to the chassis.” According to the examiner
(answer, page 7), “Nakata teaches in Figures 5A-5B an ink
cartridge comprising a check valve (15) having a small disk (50)
made of an anticorrosion and elastic material such as a synthesis
rubber or plastic material for easily replaced so that the cost
would be reduced.” Based upon the teachings of Nakata, the
examiner is of the opinion that “[i]t would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
in the art to incorporate the teaching of using a check valve
comprising a small disk taught by Nakata into the ink cartridge
of Clark et al for the purpose of easily replacing the check
valve so that the cost would be reduced.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007