Appeal No. 96-1380
Application 08/219,189
applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.").
Davidge does not disclose using his recirculation technique to
move residual toner from a transfer member to a
photoconductive member, as required by the claim. Instead,
Davidge's disclosed recirculation technique is limited to
recirculating the residual toner between two stations
associated with the photoconductor on drum 7, which
corresponds to the claimed photoconductive member. Nor does
Davidge disclose a recirculation technique which relies on
engagement of a cleaning blade with a moving member to
accumulate residual toner and on subsequent disengement of
the cleaning blade from the moving member to permit the
accumulated residual toner to be carried to a different
location. For these reasons, we are of the view that Bisaiji
and Davidge considered together fail to suggest the invention
recited in claim 14. Accordingly, the § 103 rejection of
claim 14 over Bisaiji taken with Davidge is reversed, as is
the rejection of claims 2-34, which stand or fall (in this
case stand) therewith.
REVERSED
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007