Appeal No. 95-3720
Application 08/088,146
purpose of teaching that it was known to the artisan that either
the pressure roller or the cleaning roller could be moved in
order to maintain the pressure therebetween. For purposes of
this broad teaching, Tomita is properly cited by the examiner.
Appellants also make the same arguments we have
considered above with respect to the last element of claim 1. As
noted above, we agree with the examiner that the device of Usui
fully meets the maintaining means as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
We now consider the rejection of claim 7 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Usui, Uno and Tomita. The
examiner has explained why it would have been obvious to the
artisan to use a resilient means to urge both the pressure roller
towards the belt and the cleaning roller towards the belt so as
to maintain the pressure at the cleaning nip [answer, pages 7-8].
Claim 7 basically recites the features separately recited
in claims 5 and 6. We have previously determined that Uno
suggests the feature recited in claim 5 and Tomita suggests the
feature recited in claim 6. Therefore, the combination of prior
art references suggests the invention of claim 7 for the reasons
discussed above.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007