Appeal No. 2003-2114
Application No. 09/757,430
line 15 – page 5, line 11). The appellant focuses argument on two
features of the claim which are urged to be absent. First, it is
contended that the appellants’ claim requires a valve that can be
selectively opened and closed, while Pawlowski is a one-way duck
billed check valve (Appeal Brief, page 8, lines 5-10). Second, it
is urged that Pawlowski does not show an air escape path
configured to gravitationally collect air, where a vent may be
“selectively” opened to vent gravitationally collected air.
(Appeal Brief, page 9, lines 5-7).
We are not persuaded by this argument. While the appellants
focus on the different modes of operating the valves and their
implicit functioning, we remind the appellants that it is the
claims which measure the invention.
Pawlowski, in figure 1, reference numeral 220, illustrates a
“purge tube” which opens when the tube pressure exceeds a
“preselected” pressure to vent air out of the chamber (column 9,
lines 7-10). By its orientation in the Figure and associated
description, we find that the purge tube and check valve of
Pawlowski clearly meet the claim limitations of the air escape
path configured to gather air bubbles gravitationally from the
local ink container, and the air blow-off vent selectively opened
to operatively couple air in the air escape path with ambient
atmosphere and selectively closed to decouple air in the air
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007