Ex parte Beeson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 30, 2001

08548696 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 31
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ROBERT R. BEESON
____________
Appeal No. 1998-2462
Application No. 08/548,696
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, BARRETT, and GROSS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 5 through 8, which are all of the claims
pending in this application.
Appellant's invention relates to a method of compacting a
flexible ink supply container including a step of securing the
interior surfaces together. Claim 5 is illustrative of the
claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
Appeal No. 1998-2462
Application No. 08/548,696
2
5. A method of compacting a flexible ink supply
container that has opposing interior surfaces, the method
comprising the steps of:
coupling the container to a reservoir of an ink-jet pen;
moving ink from the container to the coupled reservoir;
moving the opposing interior surfaces toward one another;
and
securing together the opposing interior surfaces thereby
to prevent the opposing interior surfaces from thereafter
moving apart.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Larkin 3,260,412 Jul. 12,
1966
Ausnit 4,196,030 Apr. 01,
1980
Causley et al. (Causley) 4,551,734 Nov.
05, 1985
Bauman 5,323,932 Jun. 28,
1994
Claims 5 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Ausnit in view of Larkin and
Causley.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ausnit in view of Larkin, Causley, and
Bauman.
Appeal No. 1998-2462
Application No. 08/548,696
3
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 26,
mailed September 15, 1997) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellant's
Brief (Paper No. 25, filed June 30, 1997) and Reply Brief
(Paper No. 27, filed October 20, 1997) for appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 5
through 8.
The examiner asserts (Answer, page 5) that Ausnit
discloses all claim limitations except an array of barbed
members and socket members and coupling the bag to a reservoir
of an ink-jet pen and moving the ink into the reservoir. The
examiner turns to Larkin for the array of barbed members and
socket members "for providing a positive interlocking
mechanism to a dispensing container," and to Causley "for . .
. providing a flexible ink container having a collapsible
Appeal No. 1998-2462
Application No. 08/548,696
4
mechanism in an ink jet printer for easier replenishing of an
ink supply container" (see Answer, page 6).
Causley discloses an ink cartridge with a collapsible ink
bag for an ink jet printer. Inside the bag is probe
supporting structure 174, or a platform, upon which the bag
collapses as the ink is used. Larkin teaches (column 1, lines
38-47) that mechanical interlocking means (later disclosed as
grooves and teeth on the opposing surfaces of the sides of the
bag) can be used to maintain a collapsible dispensing
container in a collapsed state to allow for a visual quantity
check of the contents remaining in the container. Thus, in
view of Larkin it would have been obvious to attach opposing
surfaces of the sides of an ink bag together as the bag
empties to be able to easily check how much ink remains in the
ink bag. However, the sides of Causley's ink bag do not
contact each other. Instead, they contact platform 174.
Therefore, the combination of Causley and Larkin would not
yield the step of "securing together the opposing interior
surfaces ... to prevent the opposing interior surfaces from
thereafter moving apart," recited in claim 5.
Appeal No. 1998-2462
Application No. 08/548,696
5
Ausnit discloses using a fastener 15,17, to hold the
bottom of a bag closed during filling of the bag. Thus,
Ausnit is not relevant to the claim limitation of holding the
interior surfaces of the empty bag together. Furthermore,
Ausnit fails to suggest a modification of Causley that would
allow the sides to be held together without platform 174, as
required by the claim.
In addition, Causley fails to disclose coupling the
container to a reservoir of an ink-jet pen and moving ink from
the container to the coupled reservoir. Causley states
(column 3, lines 63-66) that the ink flows from inside the ink
container 16 to the outside of the cartridge, from which the
ink is delivered to an ink jet head. Nowhere does Causley
mention a reservoir. As neither Ausnit nor Larkin relates to
an ink-jet printer, the combination fails to disclose the
steps of coupling the container to a reservoir and moving ink
to the reservoir. Accordingly, as the three references do not
disclose all elements of the claimed invention, the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 5 through 7.
Appeal No. 1998-2462
Application No. 08/548,696
6
Regarding the rejection of claim 8 over Ausnit, Larkin,
Causley, and Bauman, claim 8 depends from claim 5 and,
therefore, includes all of the limitations of claim 5. Bauman
fails to cure the deficiencies noted above for the rejection
of claim 5 over Ausnit, Larkin, and Causley. Consequently, we
cannot sustain the rejection of claim 8.
Appeal No. 1998-2462
Application No. 08/548,696
7
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 5 through 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
apg/vsh
Appeal No. 1998-2462
Application No. 08/548,696
8
HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
RECORDS MANAGER
LEGAL DEPARTMENT 20B0
P.O. BOX 10301
PALO ALTO, CA 94303-0890