Appeal Number: 2006-2117
Application Number: 10/098,341
wherein the disc-shaped valve has a circular central ink supply hole, and the disc
shaped valve has a peripheral ridge which contacts the inner surface of the outer cylinder,
and an inner ridge around the circumference of the ink supply hole.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Okada 5,100,959 Mar. 31, 1992
Cohen 5,656,355 Aug. 12, 1997
Otis 5,815,182 Sep. 29, 1998
Nishimuro 6,383,436 May 07, 2002 (Oct. 29, 1998)
Claims 7 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated
by Otis.
Claims 10 through 12, 15, 16, and 20 through 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Otis in view of Cohen.
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Otis in view of Okada.
Claims 7 through 10, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 21 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims
1 through 6 of U.S. Patent No. 6,383,436 in view of Otis.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (mailed February 4, 2004) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants’ Brief (filed
November 17, 2003) and Reply Brief (filed April 5, 2004) for appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior art references, and the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 7 through 9, the obviousness
rejections of claims 10 through 12, 15, 16, and 18 through 22, and the obviousness-type
double patenting rejection of claims 7 through 10, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 21.
The examiner suggests (Answer, pages 3-4) that inner elastic valve 74 of Otis
satisfies the claim limitation an inner elastic disc-shaped valve. The examiner explains
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007