Appeal No. 1996-3506
Application 08/178,439
very similar electrophotographic recording apparatus,
including a conductive roller and blade. In fact, Figure 17
of Hosoya teaches just about everything taught in Nishio,
except, there is no specific recitation indicating Appellants’
claimed charge injection effect. Such an effect is highly
probable in Hosoya since blade 91 is biased in the same manner
as in Nishio and in Appellants’ invention. Hosoya is also a
good candidate for a relevant transfer section because
Appellants’ invention, Nishio and Hosoya all relate to a one
component developer. Thus, looking at Hosoya we find several
image transfer sections disclosed. The claimed conductive
transfer roller can be found in Figure 20 as element 95, as
noted by the Examiner. Thus we find ample motivation to
combine the teachings of Nishio and Hosoya. “It should be too
well settled now to require citation or discussion that the
test for combining references is not what the individual
references themselves suggest but rather what the combination
of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of
ordinary skill in the art.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392,
1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971).
Appellants also argue:
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007