Appeal No. 95-3720
Application 08/088,146
of showing that it was known to move either the cleaning roller
or the pressure roller in a photoreceptor belt cleaning system.
Thus, Nishise is cited for the sole purpose of demonstrating that
the artisan would have found it obvious within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103 to move the pressure roller in Usui rather than the
cleaning roller. This is the scope of the invention as recited
in claims 3 and 4, and the teachings of this scope are properly
combinable from Usui and Nishise. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We now consider the rejection of claims 5, 8 and 10 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Usui and Uno. 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 cleaning roller towards the belt so
as to maintain the pressure at the cleaning nip [answer, page 6].
Appellants’ initial argument with respect to this
rejection, as with the previous rejection, is that the secondary
reference (Uno) does not suggest the maintaining means of claim
1. As we noted above, since Usui is considerd to meet this
limitation of claim 1, this particular argument is without merit.
Appellants also point out individual differences between
each of the applied references and the claimed invention. This
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007