Ex Parte COWGER et al - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2003-1966                                                                 Page 2                
              Application 08/789,959                                                                                     


                                                    BACKGROUND                                                           
                     The appellants’ invention relates to a replaceable ink container for use in an ink-                 
              jet printer having a scanning carriage.  An understanding of the invention can be                          
              derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which has been reproduced below.                              
                     The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                     
              appealed claims are:                                                                                       
              Sabonis et al. (Sabonis)                  5,719,608                    Feb. 17, 1998                       
              (filed May 4, 1995)                                                                                        
              Moriyama et al. (Moriyama)                6,050,680                    Apr. 18, 2000                       
              (filed Jun. 26, 1996)                                                                                      
              Okazaki et al. (Okazaki)                  6,179,415                    Jan. 30, 2001                       
              (filed Aug. 12, 1994)                                                                                      
                     Claims 1, 4 and 7-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                               
              unpatentable over Moriyama in view of Okazaki.                                                             
                     Claims 1, 4 and 7-13 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                          
              unpatentable over Moriyama in view of Sabonis.1                                                            
                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                       
              the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer                       
              (Paper No. 40) and the final rejection (Paper No. 34) for the examiner's complete                          
              reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief (Paper No. 38) and Reply Brief                    
              (Paper No. 41) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.                                                 


                     1This was expressed as an alternative in the single rejection presented by the examiner.            







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007