Appeal No. 96-3392
Application 08/121,512
Cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391,
21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function
of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than
argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions
over the prior art."); In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 1022,
201 USPQ 658, 661 (CCPA 1979) (arguments must first be
presented to the Board before they can be argued on appeal).
The examiner correctly points out (EA2-3) that appellants
do not address the secondary references and argue that the
dependent claims are patentable because they depend on a
presumably allowable independent claim. The claims stand or
fall together with independent claims 1 and 20.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-17, and 19
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, and 15 -- Kurokawa
Kurokawa describes a two-component developer as a mixture
of toner and carrier particles (col. 1, lines 19-20). One-
and two-component developers use different developer
compositions and may use different apparatus to apply the
toner, but both apply a bias to the developer to charge the
toner and both have the same problem of depositing toner on
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007