Appeal No. 2003-0256
Application No. 09/334,375
stored in the ink cartridge memory element to determine the
amount of ink expelled from the cartridge. Contrary to the
examiner’s apparent argument, that disclosure by Purcell is not
an indication that the transponder/transceiver and the ink
cartridge memory element are interchangeable.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the inventions claimed in the appellants’
claims 1, 19 and 43. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of
these claims and dependent claims 2, 3, 20, 21, 37-42, 44-48, 52
and 53.
Claims 8 and 26
Claims 8 and 26 require a first transponder including a
first memory coupled to a first consumable used by the printer,
and a second transponder including a second memory coupled to a
second consumable used by the printer.
The examiner argues that “utilizing plural transponders is a
natural consequence of the obviousness of utilizing a transponder
memory element as taught by Cardullo et al. on either or both of
the ink cartridge 77 and print cartridge 74 of Purcell et al.
since Purcell et al. already provides one transponder on the
print roll” (answer, pages 9 and 10). As discussed above
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007