Appeal No. 96-2878
Application 08/313,631
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, reference is made to the
brief and answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 5, 11 through 15, 19 through 23 and 29 through 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case. It is the burden of the Examiner to
establish why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed invention by the
reasonable teachings or suggestions found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the artisan
contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6
(Fed. Cir. 1983).
With regard to the rejection of claims 1 and 19, the Examiner states that Schnall discloses a
cleaning arrangement in an electrophotographic copying machine, and uses a rotating bar 7 to move
toner into a collection compartment (i.e., cleaner sump) 11. The Examiner further states (answer, page
4): “The reference, however, does not disclose a magnet for attracting and moving magnetic material
into a storage chamber.” Yamashita is then combined with Schnall for both (1) its use of a magnetic
toner and (2) a magnetic roller 10 for moving the magnetic toner to a developer tank 6. (Answer at
page 4). On page 5 of the answer, the Examiner states:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007