Ex parte GROSS - Page 10




          Appeal No. 96-1380                                                          
          Application 08/219,189                                                      


          empty the collected residual toner from Bisaiji's belt                      
          cleaning unit 22:                                                           
                    Instead of the removed residual toner being                       
                    dumped into a container 22, where it must be                      
                    manually removed, it would appear as an obvious                   
                    expedient to the ordinary routineer to apply the                  
                    proper bias to blade 22b, transfer member 19 and                  
                    drum 9 in order that the residual toner                           
                    initially cleaned from the transfer member be                     
                    reattached to the transfer member and                             
                    subsequently transported to a single cleaning                     
                    station 10 by the photoconductive member 9.                       
                    Whether the transfer member is an intermediate                    
                    member, such as belt, or a direct transfer                        
                    member, such as a roll, is considered to be of                    
                    no patentable significance since the basic                        
                    teaching of Davidge, et al. would be applicable                   
                    in either case.  [Answer at 4.]                                   
               We agree with appellant (Brief at 7) that in combining                 
          the teachings of Davidge with Bisaiji in the foregoing manner,              
          the examiner is relying to an unacceptable extent on hindsight              
          gained from appellant's own disclosure.  Compare In re                      
          McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971)              
          ("Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a                   
          reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as               
          it takes into account only knowledge which was within the                   
          level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was               
          made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from                       

                                       - 10 -                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007