Appeal No. 95-3720
Application 08/088,146
individual consideration of the prior art references is improper.
With respect to the invention as broadly recited in claim 5, the
only question is whether it would have been obvious to the
artisan to use a resilient means such as a spring in Usui for
maintaining the cleaning roller against the pressure roller. Uno
teaches the broad concept of using a spring to bias movement in a
photoreceptor belt cleaner, and we agree with the examiner that
the broad recitation of such a means would have been obvious to
the artisan in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claims 5, 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
We now consider the rejection of claims 6 and 10 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Usui and Tomita. These claims
stand or fall together [brief, page 3]. The examiner has
explained why it would have been obvious to the artisan to use a
resilient means to urge the pressure roller towards the belt so
as to maintain the pressure at the cleaning nip [answer, page 7].
Appellants argue that Tomita does not teach use of a
pressure roller, but rather, a bar-like counter member [brief,
page 12]. We are not persuaded by this argument because Usui is
relied on to teach a cleaning roller and a pressure roller having
a cleaning nip therebetween. Tomita is cited for the sole
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007