Appeal No. 2003-1966 Page 7
Application 08/789,959
ink containers is reduced (column 5, lines 6-9), and in keeping with this objective the
reference provides several embodiments of the invention, such as that explained in
column 11, wherein the container for the color used most quickly is made larger than
the others, so that it lasts longer (line 34 et seq.). From our perspective, Okazaki would
have informed one of ordinary skill in the art of the advantage of providing a plurality of
separately replaceable ink containers so as to allow an ink container that is empty to be
replaced without replacing all of the others. This would have provided motivation to
modify the Moriyama apparatus in the manner proposed by the examiner.
With regard to the teachings of the two references, for the most part the
appellants have attacked the showings in the individual references. However, the
rejection is based upon a combination of references, and therefore these arguments
are not persuasive. See In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757, 159 USPQ 725, 728 (CCPA
1968). While we have carefully considered all of the appellants’ arguments, we
nevertheless have concluded that the combined teachings of Moriyama and Okazaki
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in
independent claim 1, and we will sustain this rejection. Since the appellants have
chosen to group claims 4 and 7-11 with claim 1 (Brief, page 5), the rejection of these
claims also is sustained. Furthermore, we note that while the appellants have not
included claims 12 and 13 in the group with the others, they have not argued the
separate patentability of these claims, but have relied upon the arguments raised with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007