Appeal No. 2006-2842 Page 5
Application No. 09/773,054
manner in which such components are connected. But, in any event, as we say, we are
confounded by the examiner’s interpretation of wipers 234 and/or cap 236 as the claimed
“second service module” and do not view this as a reasonable interpretation.
Thus we will not sustain the rejection of claims 9, 21, and 34-39 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e).
Since Wojcik does not provide for this deficiency in Garcia, we also will not
sustain the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and the rejection
of claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), these claims require the first and second service
modules to be “different,” but they do not require the modules to have “different
functions.” Therefore, as in Garcia, a first service module may be replaced with a second
service module of like kind, having the same function, and this would meet the language
of the claims.
However, each of these claims, like other claims, does require that the second
service module be able to address a printhead-related service condition that is not
adequately addressed by the first service module being in an unworn condition. This
means that the functions of the two modules must be different since they are able to
address different conditions.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007