Appeal No. 96-3146
Application 07/986,489
A. Rejection of claims 1 through 4, 6, 8 through 17 and
20
With respect to independent claim 1, the examiner
basically takes the position that Ragland shows the invention
as claimed except that it does not show the inert gas being
introduced in the space between the second electrode and the
image cylinder, and the application of the time varying
voltage to the electrodes. He contends that Miekka and
Maczuszenko together go to teach the use of an inert gas
between the electrodes to enhance the ion generation and to
prolong the life of the electrodes in Ragland. He further
offers the teachings of Kuehrle to apply the time varying
potential to the electrodes in Ragland, [final rejection,
pages 2-3].
The appellants argue that Ragland does not show the two
electrodes as claimed, and the inert gas used in Miekka and
Maczuszenko is not used in the operation of erasing an image
in an erase unit. They further argue that the time varying
potential shown in Kuehrle is also used for an entirely
different purpose, namely, in the write operation, or in the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007