Appeal No. 95-3720
Application 08/088,146
disclosure of Usui. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We now consider the rejection of claims 3 and 4 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Usui and Nishise. Claims 3
and 4 stand or fall together [brief, page 3]. The examiner has
explained why it would have been obvious to the artisan to move
either one of the cleaning roller or the pressure roller so as to
maintain the pressure at the cleaning nip [answer, pages 5-6].
Appellants’ initial argument with respect to this
rejection is that “Nishise does not adjust or compensate so as to
continuously uniformly distribute contact pressure at the
blade/belt nip” so that it suffers the same deficiency as Usui
[brief, page 6]. As we noted above, however, this limitation
incorporated from claim 1 is fully met by the disclosure of Usui
so this argument is without merit.
Appellants’ next argument with respect to this rejection
is that the teachings of Usui and Nishise would not be combined
by the artisan because they are designed for inconsistent
purposes [brief, page 8]. The propriety of combining two prior
art teachings must be considered in the context of the scope of
the invention and the teachings to be combined. The examiner has
combined the teachings of Usui and Nishise for the sole purpose
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007