Appeal No. 95-3720
Application 08/088,146
Finally, we consider the rejection of claims 14 and 15 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Usui and Takizawa.
These claims stand or fall together [brief, page 3]. The
examiner has explained why it would have been obvious to the
artisan to include a cleaning bar and a means for deflecting the
cleaning bar towards the cleaning roller [answer, pages 8-9].
Appellants argue that the Takizawa device cleans a drum
rather than a belt [brief, page 15]. We are not persuaded by
this distinction. Usui teaches a cleaning roller for cleaning a
photoreceptor belt as discussed above. Usui also teaches the use
of a flicker bar (or cleaner bar) 46 for dislodging waste matter
adhering to the cleaning roller. With respect to the invention
having the scope of claim 14, the only question is whether the
teachings of Takizawa would have suggested to the artisan the
broad idea of deflecting the Usui cleaning bar towards the
cleaning roller. For reasons indicated by the examiner, we agree
that the collective teachings of Usui and Takizawa would have
suggested the invention of claim 14. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary, we have sustained each of the examiner’s
rejections of the claims. Therefore, the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 1-11, 14 and 15 is affirmed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007