Appeal No. 2005-1630 Page 6
Application No. 10/665,752
Likewise, we will not sustain the rejection as it is directed to claim 21 and claims 22 to
26 dependent thereon, because claim 21 also requires that the screen be brought in
contact with the interconnect inlet opening. We will also not sustain this rejection as it is
directed to claim 27 and claims 28 to 31 dependent thereon, because claim 27 also
requires that the screen be brought into contact with the interconnect inlet port. We will
also not sustain the rejection as it is directed to claims 32 to 36 and 38 dependent
thereon, as these claims likewise require that the screen be brought into contact with
the interconnect inlet port 6a.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 19 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Soga in view of Ma and Dietl. The examiner,
recognizing that Soga and Ma does not describe that the screen is fabricated of
polyester mesh, relies on Dietl for this teaching and concludes:
. . . it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to select any suitable material including
polyester mesh as taught by Dietl et al as the material for the screen of
Soga et al for the purpose of providing a filter that can prevent debris or air
bubbles from entering the ink pipe connector and thus to the printhead.
[answer at pages 5 to 6].
The appellant does not argue this rejection specifically but rather argues that
Deitl does not supply the teachings missing discussed in regard to the rejection of
claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Soga in view of Ma
(brief at page 12).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007