Appeal No. 2005-1630 Page 5
Application No. 10/665,752
screen whose perforations allow the passage of the colorant particles in a pigmented
ink.
In view of the of the foregoing, we will sustain this rejection as it is directed to
claim 1. We will also sustain the rejection as it is directed to claims 2, 3 and 5 to 7 as
these claims stand or fall with claim 1 (brief at page 8).
In regard to claim 8, the appellants argue that neither Soga nor Ma describes the
step of “bringing the interconnect outlet port and the screen into contact with the fluid
interconnect inlet port,” as recited in claim 8.
The examiner argues that Figs. 3 and 4 of Soga depict that the screen (5a) and
interconnect outlet port (6a) are necessarily brought in contact with the fluid
interconnect inlet port (14a).
We agree with the appellant that Figs. 3 and 4 of Soga depict that the screen
(5a) is not brought in contact with the interconnect outlet port (6a) because the screen
(5a) is separated from the interconnect outlet port (6a) by the ink passing member (7a).
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim
8. We will also not sustain the rejection as it is directed to claims 9 to 13 as these
claims are dependent on claim 8 and therefore require that the screen be brought into
contact with the interconnect inlet opening 6a. We will not sustain this rejection as it is
directed to claim 14 and claims 15 to18 and 20 dependent thereon because claim 14,
also requires that the screen be brought into contact with the interconnect inlet port.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007